Can inaction be murder?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HerCrazierHalf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HerCrazierHalf

Guest
Typically we think of murder as the result of an action. But can willful inaction also be murder?

For example: Babies are incapable of feeding themselves. If a mother no longer performs the act of feeding the baby, the baby dies. Did she murder the child?

Another example: A person is diagnosed with a treatable disease. No known moral dilemma exist wrt the treatment. If that person declines, knowing they will likely die, is that suicide? Yes the disease killed them but they had the means to cure it and chose not to perform that life saving acts.
 
Last edited:
HerCrazierHalf said:
For example: Babies are incapable of feeding themselves. If a mother no longer performs the act of feeding the baby, the baby dies. Did she murder the child?
Click to expand...
Yes, this is murder. The mother has the responsibility to feed the child, and she knows that by not feeding it it will die.
HerCrazierHalf said:
Another example: A person is diagnosed with a treatable disease. No known moral dilemma exist wrt the treatment. If that person declines, knowing they will likely die, is that suicide?
Click to expand...
I would say it depends why they declined treatment. Was is because the treatment was costly, invasive, or had serious negative side effects? Or did they want to die and saw not doing anything as the easiest way to accomplish that end?

I am not saying that refusing treatment for the former reasons is moral, but it does not sound like suicide by any stretch.
 
Last edited:
HerCrazierHalf said:
Typically we think of murder as the result of an action. But can willful inaction also be murder?

For example: Babies are incapable of feeding themselves. If a mother no longer performs the act of feeding the baby, the baby dies. Did she murder the child?

Another example: A person is diagnosed with a treatable disease. No known moral dilemma exist wrt the treatment. If that person declines, knowing they will likely die, is that suicide? Yes the disease killed them but they had the means to cure it and chose not to perform that life saving acts.
Click to expand...
HerCrazierHalf said:
If a mother no longer performs the act of feeding the baby, the baby dies.
Click to expand...
That is not inaction. It is the deliberate act of not feeding the baby.
 
Allowing a child to starve would be regarded as murder.

Allowing something to kill you when there is no moral dilemma in avoiding it would be I suppose in the spirit of suicide. Like if the person wants to die but doesnt want to do it themselves and they find the disease as a convenient avenue.
 
HerCrazierHalf said:
For example: Babies are incapable of feeding themselves. If a mother no longer performs the act of feeding the baby, the baby dies. Did she murder the child?
Click to expand...
No that’s voluntary manslaughter - a reckless voluntary act (leaving the child) which proximately caused death of another. I’m assuming she left baby w/o intent of killing it (going to bar, etc). If she left baby specifically for intent of killing it, that is murder.

There is something called “felony murder” which doesn’t require action in the murder. If you and I rob a bank and during the robbery , some customer dies from heart attack , that’s murder even if you don’t lay a hand on him. Would be true even if he had headphones on and didn’t know you and I were robbing. Also, under this rule, our get away driver would be guilty of murder even though he never left the car and thus his only act was driving to bank
 
Last edited:
It is a (mentally competent) patient’s right to refuse medical treatment. If used deliberately as a method of suicide, it would be wrong, but some people are old or don’t want to deal with a strenuous treatment regimen like chemotherapy (especially if it is likely only to buy them a little time). In such a case, accepting natural death is not immoral.
 
It depends on which country you are in as to what definition the law would put on the action… someone has given you the US one. Law is slightly different in different countries but basically it needs to know the intent of the person before it can be called murder in most countries (mens rea). I am not a legal expert and certainly not in many countries just a retired police officer. To be murder it needs to have an element of planning… in UK we call this ‘malice of forethought’ . if you dont have that then it is likely manslaughter. This legal definition is not a lot different from mortal sin, if you think about it. In your example of the baby, the mother could be guilty of manslaughter or no sin at all. For instance if she dies or falls and lies injured on the floor unable to move she does not feed the baby, then she is not guilty of any sin as it’s not her fault the baby isnt fed and dies. It’s manslaughter if she is incapable through negligence perhaps, ie she was drunk or on drugs so she didnt feed the baby (like on Trainspotting). But that is still not murder in UK law anyway, as the intent is lacking. It’s not so much the action that determines murder, but the mens rea (guilty mind) the thought or intent behind the action or lack of action.
 
Aquinas11 said:
I’m assuming she left baby w/o intent of killing it (going to bar, etc). If she left baby specifically for intent of killing it, that is murder
Click to expand...
A single day will not kill the baby, but several in row might. She might not intend death but the average adult knows the likely outcome. Does that knowledge change the nature of the inaction?
 
Yes, it would mean that if she went to the bar for 3 days she’d be guilty but if she went to the bar for 30 minutes then no (although would be guilty of child neglect since can never leave baby unattended). And the reason is as you said - any reasonable person knows a baby needs care

Actually I think I goofed on that, if she went to bar without intending to kill baby it would be involuntary manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter = no voluntary act to cause harm to person but your actions were reckless and caused death of someone (e.g. mom leaving baby alone for days, someone speeding at 130 mph and killing someone etc)

Voluntary manslaughter = there is a voluntary act to cause harm to person but no intent to kill and your actions cause death of someone (e.g. you get in fight and beat someone up not intending to kill them and they die)
 
Last edited:
AdamP88 said:
No. That would be neglect. Murder is a very specific thing and requires action.
Click to expand...
If the intent is to starve the child, and the mother wills to do that, that is an action that takes an innocent life. The civil laws might vary in their language.
Not all actions are merely physical.
someone else can quote the appropriate theological language but here is the CCC:
Intentional homicide
…
[2269] The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
thistle:
That is not inaction. It is the deliberate act of not feeding the baby.
Click to expand...
That’s not an action by definition.
Click to expand...
I would argue that it is the “action” of deliberate neglect.
 
Last edited:
Let’s say you are in the ocean, 10 miles from shore. You are in a fishing boat. You see someone waving to you 100 feet away with a life preserver on. You look at them and then steer your boat in the opposite direction. Sounds like murder to me.
 
Legally, no.
Morally, doubtful. Unlike the other examples there’s no explicit duty to care for another out oneself here. Assuming you had nothing to do with them being in that situation.
 
No it would be manslaughter. Can’t murder someone negligently. If your actions are reckless then murder.
 
A person does not have an affirmative duty to act under the law to rescue anyone
 
This a definition of murder from Australian law:
Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person…
Click to expand...
So to answer the question, yes but the inaction would have to be done with the intention or the foresight of coursing death to be murder. Else it would be manslaughter, provided that death was foreseeable result of the inaction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top