|
Re: Re: Re: Ummm This is Something of Dilemma
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
See I don't even think that would hold up in court because she did not committ an action that led to a death, her crime was inaction. |
But that defense only goes so far. When you have a duty to perform an act, your inaction is no different from a case where you did something that caused harm.
For example, in the US, if you witness a car accident and see someone bleeding to death on the front seat, it is your right to keep on walking. No liability.
But once you become involved, i.e. trying to open the car door to save the person, you then have the duty to remain there and see that matter through. You have become linked to the matter at hand, and your inaction can be just as bad as an action. Both cause harm, and when you have a duty to a person, both make you liable.
In this case, I think it would be ludicrous to argue that the mother did not have a duty to the child. Therefore, inaction in itself can be the cause for criminal liability.
p.s. That woman should be charged for ugliness as well. Wow...
___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!
|