Criminal liability; exception; requirements
A significant aspect of this bill is its specific exclusion of abortion offenses from the standard definitions of criminal liability. It states that the provisions regarding moral wrongdoing do not apply to abortion-related offenses, asserting that such offenses should be broadly interpreted. This introduces a particular legislative focus on abortion within the wider context of criminal legal frameworks, potentially impacting how related legal matters are prosecuted and adjudicated.
HB2528 proposes amendments to Section 13-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, focusing on the requirements for establishing criminal liability. The bill delineates a minimum standard for criminal liability that requires a person to either perform a voluntary act or omit to perform a duty required by law, provided they are capable of doing so. Furthermore, the bill introduces the concept that determining whether an act or omission is 'morally wrongful' is inherently a matter of fact that must be adjudicated by a jury.
The bill raises notable points of contention, particularly regarding the moral judgment applied to criminal acts and omissions. Critics may argue that the exclusion of abortion offenses indicates a political motivation, suggesting a potential bias in the legal definition of morality as it relates to specific conduct. Furthermore, the non-severability clause implies that if any part of the amendment is deemed unenforceable, the entire paragraph would be void, creating a level of risk and upheaval for legal professionals and defendants alike should any section of the bill be challenged.