Source: Jeffrey Brand, Philosophy of Law (2013), p. 157 Bottom - 158 Top.
Negligence plays a central role in tort law (see Chapter 5, sec. 3), but only a peripheral role in criminal law. There are, however, some crimes of pure egligence. The M[odel] P[enal] C[ode], for example, includes several such crimes: negligent omicide, assault with a deadly weapon, and criminal mischief with danger- us means.3 But the very idea of punishing someone for negligence strikes ome observers as unjust. After all, if you are merely negligent, not reckless, hen by definition you are unaware that your conduct is wrong. How can you e blameworthy or criminally liable for it? Moreover, when you are unaware fa risk you have no control over your lack of awareness. You are unaware of he risk, and you are unaware that you are unaware, and you are unaware that you are unaware that you are unaware, ad infinitum. Only if someone else
informs you of your mistake will you be able to avoid it. So it seems unfair to punish you for negligence.
Being unaware that you are unaware, means unknown unknowns.
But I am confused by the recursive addition of the 3rd 'unaware'.