The general rule is that criminal law prohibits causing harm, but there is no criminal liability for omissions. In English and Welsh criminal law, there are some exceptions to this rule if there is a duty to act, such a duty can arise in various ways on a person and failure to do so can lead to criminal liability. The duty to act is an onerous burden imposed by law only in a narrow range of circumstances, generally requiring action in situations where inaction would be unreasonable. For example, section 170(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 places an obligation on a driver involved in an accident to report it to the police or to give his details to other parties involved. Supporting arguments and counter arguments will be critically examined throughout this essay to conclude that there is no place for a duty of easy rescue in English and Welsh criminal law. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In English and Welsh criminal law, there is generally no legal obligation to save someone in danger. Liability for omission arises only when a legal obligation to act is recognised. The following examples are cited: the interested parties have a special relationship that creates a duty of care between them, for example between parents and children; the interested party is the one who creates a harmful situation; The person has a contractual obligation to save, for example, the level crossing guard on duty; The person who has voluntarily assumed responsibility for another; or the duty to act is explicitly specified in the statue, for example, a woman should not voluntarily omit her child to avoid causing its death. This common law duty to act was established because it is believed that the coercive powers of the law should only be invoked in response to affirmative actions, otherwise the law would become unduly burdensome and intrusive to individual liberty. Furthermore, liability for omissions entails the possibility of numerous liabilities where there is no particular reason to attribute liability to one rather than another. Furthermore, most inaction is not serious enough to require criminalization. In some countries, such as France, which practice the civil law system, however, it is expected that one will be punished with imprisonment if someone “voluntarily refrains from the act”. provide help to a person in danger that he could have given without danger to himself or third parties with his personal action or by asking for help" In the German legal system there is a provision which also specifies "a citizen is obliged to provide help in case of accident or general danger, if necessary”. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay In my opinion, the common law is not too lenient and I am in support of the current law in the UK that a person should only be criminally liable if a duty of care is involved. As stated by jurist Glanville Williams, “the word crime is expressed with the implications of action, it is a violation of the principle of legality to condemn people who have not acted, and it is unjust to condemn someone who has not committed a crime”. acts under the name of the one who acts”. If we followed German practice, people would help out of fear of prosecution. The law then takes on the role of forcing people to act instead of prohibiting undesirable acts, and this would be intrusive to one of humanity's greatest values, free will..