Violation of law without commission of crime and consideration as to intent
It is possible for one to violate the law without necessarily committing a crime. In criminal law, crimes could be classified into crimes of commission and those of omission. While the crimes of commission involve the circumstances where the accused participate actively in the commission of the crime, in crimes of omission, the accused usually have abstained from the delivery of what if often their legal duty conferred upon them through statute or any other operating law. Crimes of omission, therefore, involve violation of the law without necessarily or actively committing any crime. However, in the context of the law, it is amounts to legal fallacy to claim that one has violated the law and yet has not committed any crime. This is because in the eyes of the law, an omission as to the duties conferred on one by the law amounts to a crime and should so be called. It is outside the law and especially in relation to the laymen interpretation of the law that such descriptions as to a violation of the law without committing a crime can and is often entertained. In the context of the case in question, it can be illustrated that instances of violation of the law without commission of crimes occur. In overall, it should be noted, however, that violation of the law is itself a crime.
One needs to look at the Siemen’s case illustratively to understand the concept of that is the subject of this paper. It is well appreciated that business cannot occur in a vacuum. In cases, of international business like is the Siemens case, the need to operate business in appreciation of other factors becomes even more pronounced. It should be appreciated in the same vein that the law exists for the solution of business problems and conflicts. The law also provides the mettle and trajectory that any business ought to follow in consonance with political, legal, economic and social requirements. The law, in order to achieve these noble objectives, confers upon managers, board of directors, consumers and indeed all business stakeholders responsibilities that they ought to observe for the realisation of a conducive business environment. In the new world order, the place of corporate social responsibility and the pressure for transparency and accountability both in public and private concerns have conspired to compel the law into stressing for stringent and tough observation of the law.
However, a brief inventory check of the body of law, informs us that these legal requirements are twofold. The first limb involves direct laws; these laws often make mandatory the commission of an action. Disobedience to these laws occasions direct crimes otherwise called crimes of commission. The second limb of the laws is the prohibitive laws. These laws merely discourage the commission of certain crimes. They are silent on what should be done that is legally sanctioned as the alternatives. It is these laws that would lead to crimes of omission. This is often because the subjects to these laws would often observe the prohibitions but fail to carry out the legal alternatives. They rely on the silence of the law to fail to perform what is often their duty in their respective stations. In the Siemens case, crimes of omission surface in the managers failures to compliance, strict observation of the law, among others. It, therefore, remains clear that one can violate the law without committing a crime.
Works Cited
Boehme , Donna and Joe Murphy. "No Place To Hide: Early Lessons from the Siemens Case." Ethikos (2007).
Dougherty, Carter. "Siemens revokes appointment after reviewing files in bribery case." New York Times (2007).
Hope, Tony. "Acts and omissions revisited." Journal of Medical Ethics (2007): 227-228.
Sims, G T. "2 Former Siemens Officials Convicted for Bribery." The New York Times (2007).
Singer, Richard G and John Q La Fond. Criminal Law. New York: Aspen Publishers Online, 2010.
