Indeed, for any reason provided by Glover to indicate why people might think that there are features about acting that impart greater responsibility than omitting to act, it is possible to construct cases with the opposite conclusion.
However, any question of this interpretation is impossible given Lord Diplock's ruling in the Sheppard case in 1981, which said categorically that: "To 'neglect' a child is to omit to act, to fail to provide adequately for its needs; and, in the context of section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, its physical needs rather than its spiritual, educational, moral or emotional needs".
Similarly, it is not necessarily true that someone who omits to act is less causally connected to a particular outcome than someone who acted to achieve that same outcome.
"Criminal charges" are defined in this study as a written accusation charging that an individual named has been accused of committing an act or omitted to do something that is punishable by law.
Mr Berlusconi has omitted to groom anyone.
Names have been omitted to protect the guilty.
*Last names omitted to protect privacy.
*Last name has been omitted to protect anonymity.
It was a moment, said Clive Woodward in 2005 when he was in charge of the tour to New Zealand, that those omitted knew they had to act in the right way despite feeling disappointed, angry and embarrassed.
But if omitting to harm were benefiting, then the act-omission doctrine – which states, roughly, that harming is morally worse than omitting to benefit – would be self-contradictory.
