The duty of easy rescue is perhaps one of the most heavily debated and most controversial topics in criminal law. The origin of this duty is Biblical and it aims to punish the so-called ‘bad Samaritan’ who fails to render assistance to a person in peril . Unlike the Anglo-American jurisdictions , most European states recognise the duty of easy rescue, albeit to different extents . Scots law per se does not impose a duty of easy rescue on ordinary citizens and failure to act constitutes a criminal offence only in exceptional circumstances; these include ex gratia close proximity relationships . In this essay, the author will purport to elucidate whether Scots law shall impose a duty of easy rescue, and if so, to what extent shall such duty be recognised in Scotland.
2. Scots law and failure to act? As aforementioned, Scots law does not impose criminal liability for failure to act, except in certain limited circumstances. These include both common law rules and statutory enactments. There are four instances at common law which give rise to criminal liability for failure to act, i.e., duties arising from close proximity relationships such as parent and child, voluntary assumption of responsibility, creation of dangerous situations or contractual duties . In Bone v HMA , a pregnant mother was found to be under a duty to save her child from the attacks of her violent partner . Per contra, in R v Instan and R v Stone and Dobinson the court held that when voluntarily assuming
This essay will attempt to explain a watershed moment using the Sarah’s Law as an example. The main objective will be to observe how this law improved society using academic research and what improvements that can be provided with the law to help in the future towards treatments of victims and witnesses. This essay will highlight how Sarah’s Law was created and how it made a huge impact in the criminal justice system, as well as, the ways the law helped victims and witnesses in society today.
The purpose of this report is to discuss the matter The Queen V Bayley, which took place on the 29th of September 2012. Adrian bailey (serial rapist) was found guilty on charges of murder and rape, this report will discuss in detail the court proceedings that lead up to the imprisonment of Adrian Bayley and also the events prior to the kidnapping of Jill Meagher. The purpose of this report is to discuss the purpose of law in our society and how it applies to people who commit crimes in our community. As well as the purpose of criminal law in our community.
However, due to this idea of strict liability offences not requiring proof of fault leads to the simple moral claim of ‘is it right to punish a person who had no intent to commit a crime, and took precautions not to let anyone get harmed in any way, to still be convicted?’ This opens the argument against the use of strict liability as it suggests that no matter what the opposing says, strict liability is a criminal offence and it is not vigorously enforced. This in turn lowers the respect to law and the criminal justice system as it appears that the justice system cannot
Fundamental to the Scottish legal system is discovering the truth. In Scotland, a defendant has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty . The burden of proof lies with the Crown, who must prove their case against a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. From the very beginning of the criminal process - the arrests of the suspect - until the very end - the conviction of the defendant - the state are empowered with many rights, such as the power to detain , which assist them in reaching the truth. Although the state are provided with these rights, there are limitations placed on them in the form of the rights of the defendant, such as the right to remain silent or the right to defend themself either in person or through legal
Despite recent reforms on the law of murder and voluntary manslaughter; including the special defence of diminished responsibility and loss of control, there are still inconsistencies present making the law unsatisfactory. This area of the law is in ‘dire need of reform’; as pointed out by the Law Commission in their 2006 report; Murder, Manslaughter and infanticide. The report stated how ‘The Law governing homicide in England and Wales is a rickety structure built upon shaky foundations.’
Do people have the right to rescue services when they put themselves at risk? Mountain climbing is an activity of climbing mountains. For helicopter services, each cost about $2 million apiece and the helicopter could only take one climber. The air is very thin on the higher level of the mountain, climbers may have faced bad weather. Members of climber are increasing in the climbing season, many of them are in the death zone that there are traffic jams. People do not have the right to rescue services when they put themselves in a risky because people may die, and bad environment.
Since the 19th century, law enforcement and punishment has developed rapidly into the justice system we rely on today. Obscure laws that had become irrelevant in an industrial and post-industrial era were fast being replaced, and despite its lack of existence at the beginning of the 1800’s, policing standards are, today, high. The necessity for this drastic change in approach to crime has stemmed from the needs of industrial Britain, and the increased awareness of the public, and government, and their perception of crime and punishment. Rather than individual cases having a direct impact on these changes, in general they provide an insight as to the reactions of the public at the time, and along with the myriad of other cases, allow us
Within certain circumstances, liability is based on the accused 's action, which is also known as an act of omission or negative act. Regardless of the defendant 's motive, the failure to act supports a finding of criminal liability only when the s/he is under a binding legal duty, has the necessary knowledge to behave aptly and carrying out his or her responsibility is possible. Even so, there are instances when the issue of guilt results from a lack thereof. Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and decided as a matter of law by the court. With regard to any crime, all criminal elements are distinguishable and identifiable for the careful analysis of each issue. Take for example the difference between points of dispute in Proctor v. State (1918) and People v. Newton (1973) when reading Criminal Law: Cases and Methods.
The second reason people have the right to rescue services when they put themselves at risk is mountain climbing is difficult
Imagine someone swinging by a rope as they’re mountain climbing. Will anyone help? More and more people are climbing Mt. Everest so, the risk involved and increasing death tolls are very dangerous. And the helicopters are very expensive, almost $2 million. It’s dangerous for the helicopters to go up to the height of Everest or even just really high because if there is more than one person, it would have to go back and forth because it can one person. People do not have the right to rescue services when they put themselves at risk because we cannot afford it.
The legal definition of crime is “an act of violation of a criminal law for which a punishment is prescribed; the person committing it must have intended to do so and must have done so without legally acceptable defence or justification” (Walsh & Hemmens 2008:2). Alternatively, deviance is any social behaviour which departs from that regarded as ‘normal’ or socially acceptable within a society or social context (Jary & Jary 1991:160). The underlining focus of my essay is The Criminal Justice System in England and Wales which is a key public service consisting of various bodies and individuals including: the Police, Crown Prosecution Service, Her Majesty’s Court Service, National Offender Management Services (Probation and Prisons) and Youth Justice Board.
The purpose of this essay is to discuss whether a perspective of social harm is more advantageous and useful over that of crime. In order to explore these advantages, this essay will look at the aetiology of crime from a legal perspective; which is arguably very narrow and individualistic in nature. As well as from a perspective of social harm, which is possibly more progressive as it broadens an understanding of ‘crime’ over that of many other serious harms.
Did you know that over two-hundred thirty deaths have happened on Mount Everest and that rescue services have only successfully removed thirty bodies? Those people died because they were unprepared by not having enough oxygen or they didn’t plan accordingly. Being unprepared, not being physically fit, and putting other people at risk are three reasons why I think that Rescue Services should not be allowed for people who put themselves at risk.
Ethics of Emergencies “The Ethics of Emergencies” explains Ayn Rand’s radical and unique view of altruism. She believes that there are 4 consequences of altruism, all of which are negative. These, simply put, are lack of self-esteem, lack of respect for others, a pessimistic view of life, and an indifference to ethics. She says that altruism hinders acts of true benevolence, and instead people act out of an obligation to others that has been internalized over time. Rand then argues that one should only volunteer to help strangers in emergency situations, and even then, only when the risk to one’s own life is less than the risk to the stranger’s. Rand advocates action in such emergencies because of the high value of human life. But Rand
Establishing whether not the current case is analogous to cases in which a duty of care already been determine. For instance the category of which duty of care has been held not to exist. The law justifies all these through the word responsibility. Everyone has a responsibility for their actions. This same word, responsibility, is also used to justify strict and vicarious liability. Parents, guardians, employers and other similar persons are responsible for their wards and employees. I think this is also a balancing of the scale. Due to circumstances such as incapacity in law of inability to pay, the injured party may be