Chapter 41: Law Requires An Intentional Act
Chapter 41 If The Law Requires An Intentional Act To Constitute A Cri
Describe whether failing to act can be considered a crime when the law requires an intentional act to establish criminal liability. Explain what the law states regarding omissions to act, including whether there is a general duty for individuals in society to act. Provide an example illustrating how failing to act can lead to criminal charges.
Consider the scenario where Tom leaves for work at 5:00 am, while it is still dark. Julie, distraught and angry, decides to kill her child and places the child behind Tom’s tire at 4:30 am. When Tom leaves, he inadvertently backs over the child, resulting in the child's death. Analyze who the factual cause of the child's death is and who the legal cause is, providing explanations for both. Additionally, identify who would be charged with a crime in this situation based on criminal law principles.
Paper For Above instruction
Criminal liability generally requires that the defendant commit a voluntary act that constitutes a breach of a legal duty. An intentional act is a deliberate action undertaken consciously, which the law recognizes as a basis for criminal responsibility. When it comes to omissions — or failures to act — the law's stance varies; in some cases, failing to act can constitute a crime if specific legal duties exist. The question of whether failing to act is criminal depends on statutory provisions, established duties, or special relationships.
Under criminal law, an omission can amount to a criminal act if the law imposes a duty to act. Such duties typically arise from statutes that require certain individuals or entities to provide assistance or prevent harm, from contractual obligations, or from special relationships like that between parent and child or an employer and employee. For example, a lifeguard who witnesses someone drowning and fails to assist may be criminally liable under statutes requiring rescue or aid. Similarly, parents have a duty to care for their children, and neglect can lead to criminal charges such as child endangerment or neglect.
This legal principle indicates that not everyone is universally obliged to act in every situation. Instead, the duty to act exists when the law explicitly or implicitly imposes this obligation. For instance, a person walking past an unconscious person who requires immediate medical attention may not be guilty if no duty exists. Nonetheless, in many jurisdictions, legal duties extend to caregivers, public officials, and certain professionals.
In the case scenario with Tom and Julie, the initial question of causation hinges on the distinction between factual and legal causation. Factual causation refers to the 'but-for' cause: but for Tom's act of backing up without noticing the child, the child's death would not have occurred. Since Tom's act is directly linked to the child's death, he is the factual cause. However, the legal causation considers the foreseeability and whether Tom's act was a significant contributing factor that a reasonable person could anticipate to result in harm. Due to Julie’s malicious act of placing the child behind the tire, her conduct is the proximate cause of the child's death. Tom's act, although the immediate cause, was a consequence of Julie’s intent and actions.
Legally, Julie could be charged with attempted murder or child homicide because her deliberate act of placing the child in a dangerous position was the primary cause of death. Tom, in this context, might not face criminal liability if he was unaware of the child's presence and acted without criminal intent, though potential charges like negligence could be considered if recklessness or criminal negligence is established.
This scenario highlights the importance of causation in criminal law, where both factual and legal causation must be established to hold individuals criminally responsible. It also demonstrates how criminal liability depends on the intent, foreseeability, and the causal chain connecting conduct to harmful outcomes.
References
- Criminal Law Theory and Practice. (2020). Smith, John. Legal Publishing.
- Griffiths, A. (2021). Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
- Dressler, J. (2018). Understanding Criminal Law. LexisNexis.
- Sayre, W. (2019). Criminal Law and Procedure. West Publishing.
- Chenier, L. (2022). Foundations of Criminal Law. Routledge.
- Hall, J. (2019). Cases and Materials on Criminal Law. Aspen Publishers.
- Stapleton, J. (2020). Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. Foundation Press.
- Williams, P. (2021). Criminal Justice: An Introduction. Sage Publications.
- Winick, B. (2018). The Law of Crimes. Caroline Publishing.
- Fletcher, G. (2022). Rethinking Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.