No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily. An involuntary act in this context, sometimes referred to as "automatism," means an act that is performed by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action, or a convulsion. It can also refer to an act done by a person who is not conscious of what they are doing, such as an act committed while suffering from a concussion or while sleep-walking.)
The term "involuntary act" is, however, capable of wider connotations. To prevent confusion, it should be observed that in the criminal law, an act is not to be regarded as involuntary simply because the doer does not remember it... Nor is an act to be regarded as an involuntary act simply because the doer could not control their impulse to do it. When a man is charged with murder, and it appears that he knew what he was doing, but he could not resist it, then his assertion "I couldn't help myself" is no defense in itself... Nor is an act to be regarded as an involuntary act simply because it is unintentional or its consequences are unforeseen. When a man is charged with dangerous driving, it is no defense for him to say, however truly, "I did not mean to drive dangerously."
Just as it states in the book, an involuntary act is one that is done without conscious thought, such as sleepwalking, reflexes, convulsions, etc. However, this does not mean one can claim an involuntary act when committing murder or driving recklessly, as these actions are done voluntarily. For example, if someone punches another person in the back of the head and watches them fall into water, they cannot claim that they did not expect the person to drown. While they may not have intended to kill them, their actions led to the person's death, and it was still voluntary.
Professor J.G. Murphy (Involuntary Acts and Criminal Liability, 51 Ethics 332 (1971)) points out that there are two situations in which human actions "misfire." One is where actions are done accidentally or under duress. The other is where the action misfires in a more basic way—such as in cases of convulsions, reflex movements, or somnambulism. In the first group of cases, we speak of mitigating the actor's responsibility or excusing the act. In the second group of cases, however, we do not think of an excuse, but rather believe that no human action occurred at all—"talk of an excuse here seems to make no more sense than would talk of excusing a rock for falling on one's head."
(Duress-Duress refers to the situation when a person makes unlawful threats or engages in coercive behavior that causes another person to commit acts that they would otherwise not commit (Cornell, n.d.).
Coercive Behavior/Control- Coercive control, as defined by Evan Stark, PhD, a sociologist and forensic expert who coined the term, is used to instill fear and compliance in a partner. This type of mistreatment follows regular patterns of behavior and is, according to him, "in the vast majority of cases," employed by men against women who are involved in abusive romantic relationships (Kennedy, 2017).)
An easy way to remember duress is to think of individuals who are in heightened states of emotions, such as extreme happiness or sadness. Additionally, when a person is intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, they can be easily coerced. Blackmail can also be used to control another human being, along with threats of violence to an individual or others. The definition I added above for coercive behavior states that it can occur When a person is put in a state of duress, they may not know what they are doing or may feel they have no choice, thus involuntarily engaging in certain actions. In psychology, the term "gas lighting" can be used to put someone into duress, although gas lighting primarily involves emotional and mental abuse, not physical abuse. I won't go into too much detail on this topic, but the simple definition is that it falls under duress in a sense. Within relationships, whether with a current or former lover, friend, colleague, family member, or even a random person. )
Another form of involuntary actions is when someone does something that may be caused by a medical condition, such as a seizure.
In case no one has the practice questions, I will share one from my online version.
Martin is sitting in his living room chair, drinking his eighth beer of the night when the police arrive. They Martin has no recollection of taking the garden gnome. When Martin refuses to go outside with the officers, the police physically pick him up and carry him outside. While he is standing outside, Martin has a seizure. His body convulses, and his arm hits one of the officers (Kadish et al., 2016, p. xx). demand that he goes outside to talk to them about a claim that he stole his neighbor’s garden gnome.)
In this question, the person cannot be charged with assault on the officer because they had a seizure, and it was an involuntary act. The same applies to stealing the garden gnome because it was an involuntary act, and the person had no recollection of it.
The law recognizes that under certain circumstances, the omission of a duty owed by one individual to another, where such omission results in the death of the one to whom the duty is owing, may make the other chargeable with manslaughter. This rule of law is always based on the proposition that the duty neglected must be a legal duty, and not a mere moral obligation. It must be a duty imposed by law or by contract, and the omission to perform the duty must be the immediate and direct cause of death (Kadish et al., 2016, p. 234).
There are at least four situations in which the failure to act may constitute a breach of a legal duty. One can be held criminally liable in the following cases: first, where a statute imposes a duty to care for another; second, where one stands in a certain status relationship to another; third, where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another; and fourth, where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid (Kadish et al., 2016, p. 235).
To break it down, a parent is obligated to take care of a child. If a parent fails to provide a child with food, water, medical attention, proper sleep, or subjects the child to physical abuse, the parent can be held liable and may lose custody of the child, as well as face criminal charges.
Similarly, if a medical professional neglect to provide necessary care to a person, resulting in harm or death, the medical professional can be charged. Of course, for non-life-However, in more critical situations, like when a person is having a seizure, if a doctor at a hospital witness this and refuses to provide aid due to insurance or financial issues, the doctor can and will be charged for any resulting harm or death. Threatening situations, such as a toothache or a stomach pain, a medical professional may not face charges for not providing immediate assistance.
John, Mike, Sue, and Roger are at a pool party. During the party, a toddler falls into the pool and starts to drown. Everyone sees what is happening, but no one stops to help. John is the toddler's father, Mike is the hired lifeguard, Sue is an off-duty police officer, and Roger is a guest at the party. The prosecution files criminal charges against both John and Mike for failing to help the child (Kadish et al., 2016, p. xx).
In this scenario, the father, John, and the hired lifeguard, Mike, are the two individuals who will be charged because they both had a legal obligation to save the child. The others had a moral obligation but not a legal one.
People with more resources or abilities may have the capacity to give and help others, but they don't necessarily have a greater responsibility unless their actions cause harm or negative consequences. For example, a multi-millionaire UFC fighter who engages in assault and abuse has a greater responsibility not to commit such acts, and they should be charged if they do so. Their physical abilities make them potentially dangerous, and they should know better than to engage in violent behavior.
In cases where these professionals act out violently, they should face more severe consequences, such as harsher charges or higher fines, due to their professional training and responsibilities. However, they do not have an obligation to random martial artists they do not know or have no connection to.
Just like the question from the textbook, unless they are the lifeguards on duty, obligated to save a life, or if the drowning child is not their own, they do not have a legal duty. However, they may still have a moral responsibility to help, which may not constitute legal actions.
Unless they were the lifeguards on duty, I doubt they can be held liable. Even if they were the lifeguards, why did they start the party without any lifeguards?
It really depends; yes, someone can be held accountable if they could have saved a life and did not. However, there is a difference between moral and legal responsibility, and various factors have to be taken into consideration.
It is sad to say, but no, they do not. Even though I wish I could hold someone accountable for the plight of starving children, a person with a lot of money is not legally obligated to help. There is no law, last time I checked, that demands a person to help a starving child unless it is their own.
The best articles, links, and news delivered once a week to your inbox.