Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Criminal Law Essay - Acts and Omissions

Hi, this is the first law essay im having to write and I have no idea where to start! The Question is:

'Positive acts should attract more blame and in turn more punishment than Omissions.' Agree or Disagree.

Should i start by defining both 'acts' and 'omissions' in my introduction?What are your views on this topic? Any help would be appreciated! thanks!

Reply 1

Desmond Hume

Hey I had to write an essay on a similar topic when I studied Criminal Law.

The key to answering this question well is to consider whether its reasonable that omission offences should be criminalised. The idea being, that if I haven't done any positive act which contributes towards committing a criminal offence, I shouldn't be made liable.

I'll get to how to answer the question specifically but first you need to ensure that you have done all the necessary reading. Read all the cases in which a defendant has been held guilty of a criminal offence because of an omission; Fagan v MPC, R v Stone, Dobinson etc. There are also two imporant articles in law journals that will come in very useful in answering this question: one is by Ashworth (in favour of omissions liability) and the other is by Glanville Williams (not in favour of omissions liability). Both of these articles are very readable and make the area very clear and easy to understand - Williams' article is written in response to Ashworth's article, so read the latter first.

Its really up to you whether you want to use your introduction to define what is meant by an omission or an act. What I would say though, is that is a very common way of answering a question. In answering a question, you don't want to recite given facts - you don't get any points for that. Instead, you need to find ways of showing the examiner that you have fully understood the area. In fact, I think because of the way in which the question is worded, there's a danger in beginning with definitions rather than say, immediately expressing your own opinion which you can follow up by arguments supporting your views.

If I was to write this essay, I would begin with my own problem scenario. For example: Ted a ten year old boy is drowning in a lake. Barry who is passing by hears Ted's pleas for help but doesn't respond to them and instead simply passes by. Ted dies through drowning. I would then go on to critically compare Barry's (in)actions with someone who, for example, stabs Ted and kills him. I'd ask, Ted still dies and should the Law be such that Barry should be made to help Ted after he hears his pleas for help. Perhaps a better example scenario could be if Ted is blind and is about to walk off a cliff and all Barry has to do is shout a warning message.

The point is by using the essay to engage with key problematical issues in the area, you will write a much better essay than if you adopt a conventional approach that an examiner is likely to have read over and over again. By showing you are unorthodox in your approach and by dealing with all the key issues, you are showing the examiner so much more.

Hope that helps. Let me know if you need me to clarify any of it.