عنوان مقاله [English]
Most jurisprudents believe that murder by omission gives rise to liability for the doer of the action in case of intent and with the assumption of capability. Jurisprudents have studied murder by omission (failure to act) under different rules of jurisprudence, such as the no loss principle, beneficence (Ihsan) and causation (Tasbib). There are, however, different comments on the issue. Despite developments and changes established in the law of Iran at different legal periods, there was no clear regulation regarding the criminal liability of the person who failed to act (Tarik), until by virtue of paragraph 1 of the unified article the law for the refusal to provide assistance to injured persons and to eliminate the risks of life in 1354, this issue was subject to legislative prediction; on the other hand, in 2013, pursuant to Article 295 of the Islamic Penal Code of 1392 and according to the present conditions in the aforementioned article, the person who failed to act is held to have criminal liability. In some countries, based on common law, the criminal liability of the person who refuses to act is relatively admitted; in countries under common law, omission is considered as a material element only when there is a legal requirement and responsibility to act and failure to act leads to the commitment of the crime.
Fionda, J. (2000). Briefcase on criminal law. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
Horsey, K., Rackli, E. (2009), Tort law, New York: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, P. H. (1984). Criminal liability for omission, New York: Law School.
Samaha, J. (2001). Criminal law. U.S.A: Wadsworth.
Wayne, R. L. (2000). Criminal law. New York: West Group.