Acts are treated differently than omissions in the law because the act is something you have done
Question:
Acts are treated differently than omissions in the law because the act is something you have done and omission is something that you had no control of or did. According to misfeasance it means to cause infliction of harm, or the act in ways to inflict harm. I believe that since you are the one who is acting on the situation then you should be subjected to the consequence. Now for nonfeasance that means that you didn't create the danger nor did anything about it hence omission.
The reason it's so difficult to differentiate acts from omission is because if you observe someone drowning even though you didn't cause the person to drown it will be categorized as omission but isn't it an act considering you are not doing anything about it. So it's hard to prioritized because it's based on perception and perspectives.
The judge made the right decision on not forcing Shimp to donate his bone marrow because he is protecting Shimp bodily integrity. If every situation is faced with a legal duty to rescue then it disturbs the whole order of society. Also physical security values the person overall and our individual rights need to be protected as well.
2 An act becomes a crime when you do something prohibited by law. On the other hand, an omission becomes a crime when one fails to do something that is required by law. Jn order to convict someone, an act that causes harm has to be present. On the Contrary, to convict someone because of a commission that caused harm duty to act has to be proven by the defendant. The breach of duty must have been the cause of harm. For omissions to constitute a convictable crime, the defender must have a moral obligation to act. An action does not require any legal obligation. Any action constituting harm to anyone is convictable.
It has been argued that omissions to commit harm arenas culpable as actions that bring harm. Whether it was an action or an omission, harm was caused. This means that the harm was preventable either through action or omission. Everyone should have a legal duty of reasonable care. Even though the law stipulates that no one is under a legal duty to prevent harm with few exceptions, it is should everyone's responsibility to ensure the safety of others and property.
In my view, the judge in the Mcfalls made the right decision regarding the case. Shimp had no legal duty toward McFall's medical problems this. The law could not force the procedure on him. Donating was only a moral obligation to his cousin, which he could choose to accept on not. It would not have been right to forcefully nitride the shrimp's body without his consent. Each individual has the right to make decisions about their own body as long as they are of sound mind and maturity. Though donating to Mcfall would have been the descent and noble thing to do, he could not be held accountable for his life.
3 Acts are treated differently than omissions in the law because they involve misfeasance and failure to perform duties properly. Acts also enable some lawful acts to be performed more effectively. A harmful act is done in a manner that causes harm to others. I may have to disagree with the judge's decision in McFall v. Shimp because Shimp has the right to refuse to donate bone marrow. A judge emphasized the evil and wrong of Shimp's refusal to donate bone marrow. The judge has, however, ruled against Shimp's request and denied his request to force him to undergo a bone marrow transplant.
Expert Answer:
It seems like youre discussing the legal distinctions between acts and omissions particularly in the ... View the full answer
