Criminal law | Conduct | criminal liability | Act | Omission | CRW2601 | UNISA | TUT |LLB

#llb #unisa #law #tut #criminallaw #CONDUCT
Welcome back everyone! Today, we're diving into a crucial aspect of criminal law - understanding the foundations of criminal liability. Specifically, we'll be exploring the concepts of "conduct," "act," and "omission." So, grab your legal hats, and let's get started!
First things first, what do we mean by "conduct" in criminal liability? Well, it's the starting point - the fundamental element. But within this term, we encounter two key components: "act" and "omission."
Now, an "act" is what we commonly think of as positive conduct or commission, while an "omission" is essentially negative conduct or a failure to act. Technically, the term "act" doesn't include an "omission." They're opposites, like day and night. However, the law often uses the word "conduct" as a formal device to refer to both simultaneously.
The concept of an act serves a dual purpose in criminal liability. It forms the basis of liability, acting as the core element, and simultaneously limits the scope of liability. Imagine it as the base of a pyramid, with other elements built upon it.
Now, not every act is punishable. Criminal law doesn't prohibit a mere act in abstracto. Instead, the focus is on the specific act mentioned in the definition of the crime. For instance, if charged with rape, the required act is sexual penetration; for arson, it's setting fire to a particular structure.
A critical aspect is voluntariness - only voluntary conduct is punishable. The subject must be capable of subjecting their bodily movements to their will or intellect. Even infants or mentally ill individuals can be held liable if capable of making a decision about their conduct.
Voluntariness can be excluded by force, either absolute or relative. Absolute force removes the ability to control bodily movements, while relative force involves coercion, where one can still choose to avoid injurious conduct.
Now, let's talk about automatism. An "act" is not limited to intentional conduct; even unintentional acts, like those due to reflex movements or unconscious behavior, can be considered. It's not about remembering the event but whether the person acted voluntarily at the crucial moment.
The distinction between automatism due to involuntary conduct and unconscious behavior due to mental illness is crucial. It affects the burden of proof and the court's decisions. Understanding these differences is key to navigating legal scenarios.
Courts treat the defense of automatism with caution. Accused individuals must present expert evidence to create doubt about the voluntary nature of their actions. It's not a defense to be taken lightly.
Lastly, we touch on antecedent liability. If someone knowingly engages in an activity despite the risk of involuntary conduct, like driving with a medical condition, they may be held criminally liable for certain offenses.
The basics of conduct, act, and omission in criminal liability. Remember, the law is intricate