In Canada we have a legal system that follows the rules of the Criminal Code of Canada. In order for an individual to be convicted of an offence the crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the act (actus reus). This means "a particular event or state of affairs was 'caused' by the accused conduct" (Verdun-Jones, 25) In addition, the crown has to prove that the accused intended to committee the offence. "This means that an act does not render a person guilty of a criminal offence unless his/her mind is also guilty"(Verdun-Jones pg.25). Thus, the crown has to prove both actus reus and mens reus coincide beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict an individual of an offence. However, in some circumstances the failure to act may hold an individual liable for not doing anything act all. According to sections 129(b), 215-218 and 263 of the criminal code individual are responsible for a legal duty specified by the code. In this essay I will discuss in what cases an omission can constitute criminal liability and how I feel about these cases as well.
In the case of Degg (1981) the mother of an infant child was found liable for its death because she did not provide the necessaries of life for her son. For this case Degg was under section 215(a) because she was the mother of the infant child and had a legal duty for the care of the infant. The mother knew about the infant's medical condition and was able to bring the infant to medical facilities where he could have been treated. The liability was directly on the mother for many reasons. Under Sec.215(c)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code the mother legally had to provide the necessaries of life for her child. Secondly, under "Section 215(a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years"(Criminal Code). The mother of the infant child had a legal duty as a parent to provide her...