Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do the right thing(TM) in a moral sense and not turn a blind eye or fail to act to help someone who is in need(TM). Consider to what extent the criminal law r
'Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in a moral sense and not turn a blind eye or fail to act to help someone who is in need'.
Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions reflects this view.
Generally speaking, English law only punishes those who cause a prohibited act, although this may be a positive one. There is no general duty to act in order to do good deeds. There may well be a moral obligation on someone to be a 'good Samaritan' but there is not a legal one. However, Parliament and the courts find people criminally liable when they fail to act where responsibilities and duties of care are involved. It is not accepted that individuals should be criminally liable for failing to go to the assistance of those who find themselves in some kind of distress. Nevertheless, English law does punish those who fail to act under three situations.
The first is where a statute actually imposes a duty. One example of this is the Road Traffic Act 1988, in which lays down situations where failing to act leads to an offence. This may be not stopping at a scene of an accident, found in s.170. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 also does this. Such failures in feeding, clothing and sheltering children may lead to the offence of gross negligent manslaughter. Acts of Parliament ensure that people who fail to act appropriately will be convicted.
Another way that failing to act may lead to an offence is through a contractual duty. Doctors, for example, have a duty to act. In Adomako (1994) an anaesthetist was convicted of manslaughter on the basis that he had failed to notice that a vital breathing tube had become disconnected during an eye operation, in which resulted in death of the patient. Pittwood (1902) was convicted of manslaughter. He was a signalman employed by the railway company to look after a level crossing and ensure that the gate was shut when a train was due. He left the gate open and was away from his post, with the result of a horse and passenger hit and killed. The court rejected his argument that his duty was owed simply to the railway company, and held that he was paid to look after the gate and protect the public. These cases demonstrate that the duty is owed to who anyone who may be affected by a defendant's breaches of contract, and not just the other parties to the contract (a defendant's employers). The law here provides no escape for those who fail to fulfil a contract which is likely to endanger lives. Contractual obligations protect the public.
Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions reflects this view.
Generally speaking, English law only punishes those who cause a prohibited act, although this may be a positive one. There is no general duty to act in order to do good deeds. There may well be a moral obligation on someone to be a 'good Samaritan' but there is not a legal one. However, Parliament and the courts find people criminally liable when they fail to act where responsibilities and duties of care are involved. It is not accepted that individuals should be criminally liable for failing to go to the assistance of those who find themselves in some kind of distress. Nevertheless, English law does punish those who fail to act under three situations.
The first is where a statute actually imposes a duty. One example of this is the Road Traffic Act 1988, in which lays down situations where failing to act leads to an offence. This may be not stopping at a scene of an accident, found in s.170. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 also does this. Such failures in feeding, clothing and sheltering children may lead to the offence of gross negligent manslaughter. Acts of Parliament ensure that people who fail to act appropriately will be convicted.
Another way that failing to act may lead to an offence is through a contractual duty. Doctors, for example, have a duty to act. In Adomako (1994) an anaesthetist was convicted of manslaughter on the basis that he had failed to notice that a vital breathing tube had become disconnected during an eye operation, in which resulted in death of the patient. Pittwood (1902) was convicted of manslaughter. He was a signalman employed by the railway company to look after a level crossing and ensure that the gate was shut when a train was due. He left the gate open and was away from his post, with the result of a horse and passenger hit and killed. The court rejected his argument that his duty was owed simply to the railway company, and held that he was paid to look after the gate and protect the public. These cases demonstrate that the duty is owed to who anyone who may be affected by a defendant's breaches of contract, and not just the other parties to the contract (a defendant's employers). The law here provides no escape for those who fail to fulfil a contract which is likely to endanger lives. Contractual obligations protect the public.
