Voluntary Act is a form of crime that results from willing choice as well as independent will. The state statute clearly defines voluntary act as an offence. There have always been arguments on validity of an accident as a voluntary act (Otlowski, 1997). However, analysis of this topic brings in extensive confusion as it is difficult to determine willingness of an individual to cause harm in an accident.
It is extremely difficult to sincerely argue that all accidents are voluntary acts. Accidents are defined by the unwillingness or unpreparedness of an individual in occurrence of an event (Shaw, 2003). In a case where the defendant is sued of voluntarily causing harm to another individual, there must be proof by the plaintiff that it was out of will of the defendant certain harm occurred.
In most cases, statutes are keen to differentiate between voluntary act and accidents. For voluntary acts, willingness must be the agent cause while accident has to be characterized by unwillingness or involuntary acts. Our state statute clearly differentiates voluntary act from accident. There is a process set to differentiate between accidents and voluntary acts. There must extensive proof that a crime was voluntary or an accident.
The process of identifying a crime as a voluntary act or an accident is usually challenging. Judges have to follow certain rulings that had been made in the past to define a case. This shows that the state statute does not fully recognize the definition of crime as voluntary or accidental. However, for some cases instant solution is usually given through direct recognition of an accident.
When people are caught on a wrong they usually claim it to be accidental. This means that people find it safer to deal with an accidental act than voluntary act. The defendant will always find a point of justification for his or her action. There are various incidences that may arise as the defendant try to claim his innocence. There various people who have claimed to have caused injuries while sleepwalking. This means they were unconsciously operational. Many people have always been confused whether this would have been treated as an accident or a voluntary act (Otlowski, 1997). However, at all lengths this is an accidental act. This is because of the unwillingness of the defendant. Although, the person was walking at night he was not in his sober mode.
Also, the defendant may claim to be inebriated as they undertook a given action. However, inebriated being act of drunkenness its action is treated in a unique manner. There must be proof whether the inebriation was voluntary or a trick by other people. The two perspectives may attract different actions of justice. If the inebriation was voluntary, the defendant is answerable to the acts of crime that he commits. However, if the individual had been intoxicated by another individual the defendant has a chance of being set free if he had no idea of what was happening (Shaw, 2003). There must be no information on the knowledge of the defendant on what would befall him.
The difference between the cases on sleepwalking and inebriated individuals is based on the ability to control one of the habits while the other one is involuntary. The case of sleepwalking is based on complete lack of knowledge on what might be happening while inebriation may be a voluntary act, which attracts unique approach to resolving the case.
Otlowski, M. (1997). Voluntary euthanasia and the common law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Shaw, M. N. (2003). International law(5th ed.). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.