In the world of criminal law, the term ‘omission’ or refusal to act falls under the category of ‘actus reus’. In English criminal law, it is not common to witness omissions of people being deemed guilty and individuals being criminalised for such a cause subject to circumstances such as special duty, the formation of a situation that can be deemed dangerous and contractual obligation. This opens the door to accountability but only when the law enforces an obligation to act and the offender is guilty of violating that duty. There are 3 main principles that may contradict the imposition of criminal liability for omissions. They are: autonomy, legality and harm principle. The main idea of autonomy is to be autonomous or as self-governing as possible. There have been strong arguments over the years arguing for the idea of being autonomous and a person having the right to live their life as they see most fitting or pleasant is crucial. Criminal Law ensures that one person’s right to autonomy does not hinder or affect another person’s autonomy. …show more content…
In criminal law this can be seen in the exclusion of punishments for omissions that were not deemed criminal when they were commissioned. This principle can also be desecrated when the punishment for a specific crime are augmented upon reconsideration. This is inconsistent with the imposition of criminal liability for omissions. The harm principle states that the deeds of a person must be regulated to such an extent where they can perform acts but only so that they do not impose any harm on others. The thinker John Stuart Mill expanded this theory stating, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” He mentioned this in his book, On