Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
"In general the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal liability for an omission to act". Assess the truth of this statement and the arguments used to justify it.
Member rating:
(4 votes)
| Words:
| Submitted: Fri Jan 23 2004
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
"In general the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal liability for an omission to act". Assess the truth of this statement and the arguments used to justify it. An omission can be most easily described as a failure to do something. There is generally no liability in English law for failing to act. For example, there is no legal duty to help someone who is in danger (i.e. somebody who is drowning). Many people often get confused between an act and an omission, so first it must be decided whether you are dealing with an act or an omission. There are three situations where the question "act or omission" arises: continuing acts, supervening faults and euthanasia. An act is usually where the defendant is proven guilty of a crime because they possess all the elements of actus reus and mens rea and an omission is where...
Get instant access
- Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
- Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
- To see the full version of this document and 147,187 others
Receive email updates for this category
- Simply tell us your email address and receive a weekly Study Help Email for FREE
- Receive 3 FREE essay views with each email
- Get all the latest essays from Coursework.Info & discussion from TheStudentRoom.co.uk
