Pros And Cons Of Omission

2312 Words10 Pages
If we put ourselves before others, ignoring moral obligation to avoid danger, why are we liable for omission? Example, if a kid is drowning and the mother saw it but she could not swim, should she throw herself into danger just to avoid being charged with omission? Omission is not about failing to act when we have the duty, but also when it is expected to react to that circumstances, but we have to consider about our capabilities. . “It is not about what we do, but too what we do not do, for which we are accountable.” No action doesn’t amount to no crime but the statute arbitrates create offences of omission. In Bratty V Attorney-General , Lord Denning said that it must be a voluntary act to be punished. Voluntary act is when an individual has complete control and conscious exercise of will on his/her body. Saying if A failed to save B, but A did no positive act to cause B’s death, should A be liable? Omission cannot form the base of actus reus of an offence. There are no accountability for failing to act. It is accessible to most people that only they performed an illegal act, they will be punished. So, a failure to act cannot make an individual be guilty in law. The law of not to harm is imposed to everyone, but the duty to deter harm is only imposed to certain class of people. It is uncontroversial and it is…show more content…
In R v Dytham , a police officer in uniform who is 30 yards away from a fight, did nothing and a man was beaten to death. He left the place without calling for help or summoning an ambulance. It was held that he breached the law for wilfully neglecting an individual’s need when he has a duty imposed by law. The allusion made is not only mere-nonfeasance , but also neglecting the rule that is imposed by the law.
Open Document