Criminal liability can be defined as the responsibility for any illegal behaviour that causes harm or damage to someone or something. According to the South African Criminal law, in order to a person to held criminally liable, the state needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is conduct, causation, unlawfulness, criminal capacity and fault. This essay will specifically focus on conduct, which is a voluntary human act or omission that is unlawful, referring it to the given scenario where X sees a toddler Y, who is drowning in a swimming pool in this case, X does nothing to save the Y even though he is a good swimmer and saving X does not pose any risk to her. In this essay the writer considers whether or not criminal liability should
…show more content…
The first one is prior conduct or Omissio per commissionem where a person’s conduct creates a potentially dangerous situation, which gives the individual or group a legal obligation to prevent the danger from materialising as it is referred to in R v Miller where a homeless man who sneaked in a house set a mattress on fire from cigarette while sleeping, in case Miller did not even attempt to stop the fire from materialising instead he moved to the next room which resulted in the whole house being on fire, and the court found liable for omission per commissionem . The second liability for omission it is when a person is in control of a potentially dangerous animal or thing, a person who has such control has a legal duty to take precautions to protect third parties as it is stated in S v Fernandez who had an obligation to protect third parties from a gorilla but failed to do so, a third party was attacked and killed by the Gorilla. The third liability for omission it when there is special or protective relationship, if such relationship exists between one another then there is a legal duty to protect that person from harm, as it was stated in the S v B case where the mother had a legal duty to protect the her child from her abusive boyfriend but failed to do so. The fourth duty to act is the Public office, legal duty that arises from office , as it is stated …show more content…
The Liberal idea of freedom consists in the right for person to act in any way he/she prefers as long it does not infringe the rights of others. The affirmative obligations imposed by Good Samaritan statutes unduly meddle with individual liberty. The appropriate capacity of law is to defend people's rights, not to require one individual to act for the benefit of another. In spite of the fact that there might be an ethical obligation to be a Good Samaritan, such obligations cannot be implemented by the law. In like manner, the imposition of an affirmative duty to rescue would violate the liberal values at the centre of the legal order, which may lead to a dysfunctional legal order . Moreover, causation is one of the five elements that need to prove by the court beyond reasonable doubt, meaning that in order for a person to be criminally liable that person must have caused harm to another person and the failure to rescue does not fulfil this condition since it merely enables harm to happen without inflicting it, therefore causation cannot be proven beyond reasonable
The first one is prior conduct or Omissio per commissionem where a person’s conduct creates a potentially dangerous situation, which gives the individual or group a legal obligation to prevent the danger from materialising as it is referred to in R v Miller where a homeless man who sneaked in a house set a mattress on fire from cigarette while sleeping, in case Miller did not even attempt to stop the fire from materialising instead he moved to the next room which resulted in the whole house being on fire, and the court found liable for omission per commissionem . The second liability for omission it is when a person is in control of a potentially dangerous animal or thing, a person who has such control has a legal duty to take precautions to protect third parties as it is stated in S v Fernandez who had an obligation to protect third parties from a gorilla but failed to do so, a third party was attacked and killed by the Gorilla. The third liability for omission it when there is special or protective relationship, if such relationship exists between one another then there is a legal duty to protect that person from harm, as it was stated in the S v B case where the mother had a legal duty to protect the her child from her abusive boyfriend but failed to do so. The fourth duty to act is the Public office, legal duty that arises from office , as it is stated …show more content…
The Liberal idea of freedom consists in the right for person to act in any way he/she prefers as long it does not infringe the rights of others. The affirmative obligations imposed by Good Samaritan statutes unduly meddle with individual liberty. The appropriate capacity of law is to defend people's rights, not to require one individual to act for the benefit of another. In spite of the fact that there might be an ethical obligation to be a Good Samaritan, such obligations cannot be implemented by the law. In like manner, the imposition of an affirmative duty to rescue would violate the liberal values at the centre of the legal order, which may lead to a dysfunctional legal order . Moreover, causation is one of the five elements that need to prove by the court beyond reasonable doubt, meaning that in order for a person to be criminally liable that person must have caused harm to another person and the failure to rescue does not fulfil this condition since it merely enables harm to happen without inflicting it, therefore causation cannot be proven beyond reasonable