Prior Conduct of Omission Offenses

Zhang Mingkai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-6676.2012.03.023

2011-01-01

Abstract:The duty to act should be determined by way of combining both the formalized examination based on law and the substantive examination based on substantive legal reasons. In the traditional classification of duties to act, the prior conduct is classified as a formalized duty under law (as the defendant of the omission offense is exact the actor commits the prior conduct) , therefore, so long as the prior conducts are restricted substantially, certain prior conducts can establish the duty to act that entails criminal liability. In China, the requirement of the "equal seriousness" of the omission and the commission by a positive act only means that an omission should also satisfy the constitutive requirements as prescribed by the criminal law. In the context of commission, the killing by a positive act is the cause of the death, and the defendant has control over such cause. Therefore, to establish an omission constitutes murder also requires the defendant has control over the cause of death. In this sense, it is right and acceptable to restrict the substantive requirement of a duty to act to the control over the cause. When the defendant commits a dangerous prior conduct and takes no positive measures to prevent the occurrence of the actual harm, he or she still has control over the cause. Specifically, if a prior conduct creates a source of danger to the legal interest protected by the criminal law, and the danger is so magnified that will be imminently materialized into actual harm without positive measures, the defendant has control over the cause of the actual harm. Omissions, offenses with justificatory defenses, offenses of negligence and intentional offenses may all become the prior conduct which results in the duty to act. Dangerous prior conducts give rise to the duty to act not only for a derivative omission offense, but also for a non-typical genuine omission offense.