Search

The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, through its judgment in Jean Mpambara case, outlined the significance of culpable omissions, outlining three broad offences under which it could be used as evidence. While it is clear that an omission may be considered as evidence of aiding and abetting or joint criminal enterprise, it is still not clear whether omission of failure of duty to prevent or punish will be considered as part of Article 6(1) of the statute as done by the other trial chambers, or will it be considered as a different species of crime as concluded by the trial chamber in this case? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the justification of killing based on the concept of act-omission doctrine and doctrine of negative rights. Both the act-omission doctrine and doctrine of negative rights justifies the killing of one person to save many lives. However, act-omission doctrine makes the person responsible for violating a right to life despite of the good intention.

The article presents a study of the effect of self and social control on the process of crime desistance from self-reported criminal activity among a sample of French-Canadian men who were adjudicated during adolescence. The latent trajectory modeling is used to test two models which include the launch and contemporaneous effect models. Based on the study, it is suggested that self-control variables are more important in the prediction of crime desistance.

The article presents a study on the effects of criminal history on the process of desistance in adulthood among serious youthful offenders. It investigates the link between recent and future offending levels and explores the predictive importance of juvenile and adult criminal histories in the desistance process. The finding shows that criminal activity in early adulthood is more informative on risk prediction than elements of past crimes.

The article presents a study of the relationship between low self-control and the four dimensions of criminal careers which include participation, frequency, persistence and desistance from crime. It investigates whether self-control differentiates between persistence and desistance. Based on data from 985 participants, the authors found that low self-control equally predicts all dimensions of criminal behavior and that its effects hold study across all types of individual.

Frankfurt-type examples seem to show that agents can be morally responsible for their actions and omissions even if they could not have done otherwise. Fischer and Ravizza's influential account of moral responsibility is largely based on such examples. I examine a problem with their account of responsibility in cases where we fail to act. The solution to this problem has a surprising and far-reaching implication concerning the construction of successful Frankfurt-type examples. I argue that the role of the counterfactual intervener in such examples can only be filled by a rational agent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discussions of the principle of alternative possibilities have largely ignored the limits of what Frankfurt-style counter-examples can show. Rather than challenging the coherence of the cases, I argue that even if they are taken to demonstrate the falsity of the principle, they cannot advance the compatibilist cause. For a forceful incompatibilist argument can be constructed from the Frankfurtian premise that agents in Frankfurtian circumstances would have done what they did even if they could have done something else. This ‘counterfactual stability’ meets the same fate under determinism as does the ability to do otherwise. Thus the cases are irrelevant to the compatibility debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the Scots Criminal Law and Liability for Omissions. It discusses the distinct aspects of Scots law of criminal procedure that include the need for relevancy in an indictment and aggravation which is a form of qualifying words at the end of the terms or libel of the indictment. Scots indictments followed the principle of syllogism wherein there was a need to state a major proposition, minor proposition and others.

Ayn Rand said that measurement omission is an essential part of concept formation. This essay argues that something else is omitted much, even most, of the time. The nature of measurement is explored in order to support the argument. The author agrees with Rand's more general claim that concepts are grounded in similarities and differences. However, he argues that her theory is partly flawed in claiming that all differences between similar existents are ones of measurement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While deliberately excluding from its scope the issue of superior responsibility, this article considers whether there is a general rule of international law providing for liability for omission on which to base a concept of "improper crimes of omission" or "commission by omission". By analyzing international law sources, the article finds that treaty law contains a provision of only limited scope. A customary law rule, it argues, could not come into existence due to the lack of opinio iuris. Turning to general principles of law, the article studies various legal systems, concluding that there is a general principle of law, which for the purposes of criminal law equates the human conduct of omission with action, if a legal duty to act exists. Based on this finding, the article argues that the International Criminal Court is in a position to apply the concept of commission by omission despite the lack of such a general provision on omission in the Rome Statute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary liberal democracy employs a conception of legitimacy according to which political decisions and institutions must be al least in principle justifiable to all citizens This conception legitimacy is difficult to satisfy when citizens are deeply divided at the level of fundamental moral, religious, and philosophical commitments. Many have followed the later Rawls in holding that where reasonable pluralism of such commitments persists, political justification must eschew appeal to any controversial moral, religious, or philosophical premises. In this way. the Rawlsian account of public political justification involves a politics of omission, where citizens are expected to bracket off their fundamental commitments and seek justifications that draw only from uncontroversial premises. politics of omission is necessary, Rawls argues, for political stability. But there is good social epistemic evidence far the view that the politics of omission encourages insularity among like-minded groups, that this insularity in turn generates extremism. So omission is likely to lead to instability, not stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the issues of identity theft and the potential problems brought by it. It discusses the court case Patrick v. Union State Bank wherein the plaintiff was a victim of negligent enablement of imposter fraud. It argues that considerations should be made from future plaintiffs who experience negligent application of imposter fraud claim, as well as more favorable treatment from courts.

There are two ways in which the act-omission doctrine, which implies that it may be permissible to let people die or be killed when it is wrong to kill them, gives rise to a paradox. First, it may be that when you let a victim be killed, you let yourself kill this victim. On the assumption that, if it would be wrong of you to act in a certain fashion, it would be wrong of you let yourself act in this fashion, this yields the paradox that it is both permissible and impermissible to let yourself act in this fashion. Second, you may let yourself kill somebody by letting an action you have already initiated cause death, e.g., by not lending a helping hand to somebody you have pushed. This, too, yields the paradox that it is both permissible and impermissible to let yourself kill if you are in a situation in which killing is impermissible but letting be killed permissible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the associations between wit, judgment and misprision of similitude. Notions of wit as a cognitive faculty; Unreconcileable differences and the conflict between wit and judgment; Views on the unreliability of the paradox of similitude or literary figuration.

Argues that the treatment of omissions of law theorist Michael S. Moore, with regards to the formal requirements for criminal liability in the U.S., is flawed and that its flaws stem from Moore's broader action of theory. Moore's two claims against omissions; Different kinds of omission as distinguished by George Fletcher, a law theorist; Application of the theory of Moore in tax evasion.

This paper investigates the use of deception in two negotiation studies. Study I (N = 80) demonstrates that direct questions and solidarity curtail deception. Study 2 (N = 74 dyads) demonstrates that direct questions are particularly effective in curtailing lies of omission, but may actually increase the incidence of lies of commission. These findings highlight the importance of misrepresentation to the negotiation process and suggest approaches for contending with deception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides an observation of expanding criminal omission liability. Discussion on the commission of the crime; Legislation addressing failures to assist; Conclusion.

Presents a guide to the issue of omissions in criminal justice. Controversy over liability for omissions; Relation of various levels of discourse; Ontological status of omissions as a form of conduct; Function of the requirement of `actus reus' for criminal liability; Worries about controlling liability for omissions.

Three experiments investigated how moral judgments of harmful acts and omissions are affected by information about social roles. Subjects were given vignettes in which the relationship between an actor and victim was varied along the dimensions of solidarity (e.g. friends versus strangers) and hierarchy (e.g. superior versus equal; the terms are from Hamilton & Sanders, 1981). Subjects were asked to judge the morality of the actor in each case, both for a harmful omission (e.g. intentionally withholding the truth) and for an equivalent act (e.g. actively lying). Subjects judged the bahaviour worse in the act than the omission. Judgements were also affected by role relationships. The act-omission difference was also greater in the low-responsibility roles. Responses to the high-responsibility roles seem to reflect in a consequentialist perspective, focusing on outcomes rather than prohibitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the subject of act and omissions, mens rea, and complicity. It compares the approaches of three codification efforts, namely the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, the Law Reform Commission of Canada's 1986 report entitled "Recodifying Criminal Law" and the British Law Commission's 1989 Draft Criminal Code Bill. Reference was also made to a 1985 British draft, Code Team Draft.

In this article the author is discuses on the whether moral agents can be praiseworthy or blameworthy for omitting what is wrong. He presents some cases in which philosophers are considered praiseworthy for their omissions of wrong thing done by them. He further define clearly the concept of praise and blame and discusses on the saintly omissions.

The article argues that though it is a well established in criminal law that liability may arise from omission as well as commission, it is often problematical just what circumstances give rise to such liability. The Roman law, for example, penalized homicide brought about by means of willful starvation, or by failure to complete a surgical operation. The latter problem, incidentally, reappears frequently in the history of criminal law. Logically it would seem proper to treat causation first, for people can ask whether an omission was criminal or not only when they are sure that the event was causally connected with the inactivity.

The article presents decision of District Court (landesgericht or LG) Munich filed two applications from the health portal NetDoktor.de in preliminary injunction proceedings against functional renormalization group (FRG), represented by Health Ministry, as well as against Google and a prohibited due to an antitrust violation. It mentions about running the health portal NetDoktor.de for requests the omission of healthy.bund.de of a Google search with search engine operators to access contents.

The article discusses criminal law developments in New Zealand in relation to the nation's Crimes Amendment Act (No 3) 2011 which becomes effective on March 19, 2012, including information on the criminalisation of omissions. A duty on caregivers to provide children and vulnerable adults with the necessaries of life is addressed in Sections 151-152 of the New Zealand Crimes Amendment Act (No 3) 2011. Other topics include parental duties, domestic violence, and the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961.

Food offers highly profitable opportunities to criminal actors. Recent cases, from wine and meat adulteration to milk powder contaminations, have brought renewed attention to forms of harmful activities which have long occurred in the food sector. Despite several scandals over the last few decades, food has so far received scant criminological attention and the concept of food crime remains subject to different definitions. This article assesses regulations in the United Kingdom (UK) and UK authorities' official reports published between 2013 and 2018 through a review of academic literature published in English. It charts the evolution of the food crime concept, its various meanings, and different harmful activities associated with food crime, which originate from unlawful acts and omissions. This article also points out that further criminological research needs to address the definitional issue of food crime and inform a more integrated policy approach by considering activities beyond food fraud and the protection of food safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs that Landgericht (LG) Koblenz has an inflencer who despite corresponding declaration of omission, commercial content in business dealings so Actions condemned. It mentins that the defendant is the influencer, who via her Account etc. posting pictures of herself on which she has diverse Presents products, and actions of the defendant are unfair within the meaning of the Law against unfair competition (UWG).

The article discusses a criminal case before the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, BGH) of Germany, decided on September 5, 2012, which revolved around the question whether accomplices in a case aggravated assault can also be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder if one of them used deadly force with malicious intent. The court examined such problems as criminal liability, omission, and misprision in the case of the beating and killing of a homeless man by three teenagers.

The article discusses a legal case concerning the civil and criminal liability of physicians for damages due to omission, decided by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, BGH) of Germany on February 7, 2012. The case concerned complications during the delivery of a child that might have been prevented had the attending physician opted for a different treatment plan during pregnancy. The question of the burden of proof in such cases was also addressed.

Pursuing the theme of libel and defamation as laid out in the opening article in this issue, the author brings two additional topics to the discussion. The first question explored is whether there can be a legal concept dealing with defamation involving animal victims. The second exploration deals with the possibility of defamation by omission.

The article presents activities related to the article "Time, delay and nonfeasance" by Patrick Keyzer and Suzanne O'Toole which discusses issues relating to the administration of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003.