100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Summary Fundamental Concepts of Criminal Law £6.13
Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. University College London (UCL)
  4.  
  5. Law
  6.  
  7. Criminal Law

Summary

Summary Fundamental Concepts of Criminal Law
 0 purchase

This set of notes contains easy-to-follow, colourful tables that summarise the fundamental concepts one needs to understand to excel in any Criminal Law module (e.g. recklessness, intention, mens rea). The document contains summaries of academic articles/ opinions, which are helpful for essay quest...

[Show more]

Preview 2 out of 7  pages

Document information

  • No
  • Chapters 2-5
  • July 26, 2021
  • 7
  • 2019/2020
  • Summary

Subjects

Connected book

book image

Book Title:

Author(s):

  • Edition:
  • ISBN:
  • Edition:

More summaries for

All for this textbook (5)

Written for

All documents for this subject (5)

Seller

avatar-seller
yourlawnotes

Content preview

OMISSIONS

Academic source Summary
Ashworth, The scope of criminal liability for - distinction between the conventional view — criminal
omissions law ought to be reluctant to impose liability for
omissions except in serious and clear cases, and the
social responsibility view — the moral distinction
claimed by supporters of the former view is not that
easy to draw + sometimes, it may be fair to place
citizens under obligations to render assistance to
others given the extent to which they rely on one
another.
- conventional view — individual liberty + autonomy /
social responsibility view — social welfare +
communitarian ideas.

Simester, Why omissions are special - the importance of the moral distinction between acts
and omissions depends on considerations of
responsibility.
- distinction between acts and omissions based on
movement and non-movement is mistaken — same
instance of behaviour may constitute both things done
and not done, e.g. hunger striking does not involve a
movement per se, while reading a novel instead of a
textbook does.
- Moore supports the movement/ non-movement
distinction — Simester disagrees with his position
because he finds it to be overly narrow.
- Honore — supports distinction between acts and
omissions by reference to interventions and non-
interventions, i.e. whether something leads to a change
in the baseline of the world: [T]hat what explains the
difference between doing and not-doing is the notion
of intervening in the world so as to bring about
change; and that at a secondary level this notion
extends to the interruption of human routines. If the
human routine is required by a norm, the violation of
it is an omission which will entail responsibility.
- the criminal law ought to restrict liability for not-
doings more severely than for doings:
- omissions less culpable than acts
- opposed to the neutrality thesis (advanced by
Bennett), which states that they are morally
equal if they lead to the same effect.
- Honore — acts make things worse by
intervention, while omissions merely fail to
make things better by non-intervention.
- the aim of the criminal law is to preserve the
stability of the world by preventing harm, rather
than coercing benefits. (Honore)
- if a legal system proscribed not-doings
alongside doings, it would be overly intrusive —
it is desirable for a legal system to minimise the
way in which it deprives its subjects of
behavioural options => if there was no
distinction between acts and omissions in the
criminal system, individuals would have far
fewer options of avoiding liability. (Simester)
- human nature — we are entitled to prioritise out
own interests + not act for the benefit of
somebody else in absence of ‘distinct
duty’ (Honore).
- the responsibility thesis — a doctrine of general
liability for not-doings would result in a system
which is largely insensitive to ideas of
individual autonomy and authorship => liberty
not to act.

, distinction between acts/ omissions and criminalisation
not based on movement (position untenable)

based on responsibility (Simester)

baseline argument

introduction of bad Samaritan laws

impractical

counter-productive effect

overly vague

difficult to prove MR

too much prosecutorial discretion

infringement on liberty

autonomy vs. social responsibility

utilitarian grounds untenable

wishful thinking

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller yourlawnotes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £6.13. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

69052 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now

Start selling
£6.13
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added