|
SuzanneSciarraSecondPaper 10 - 13 May 2010 - Main.SuzanneSciarra
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Suzanne, please feel free to give me any feedback you'd like regarding what I've written. If there's anything you'd like me to address or correct before you do your rewrite, I am happy to. | >
> | Good Samaritan Laws | | | | |
<
< | I think this essay addresses a lot of the key practical arguments against mandatory Good Samaritan laws. The debate about ideology and forced altruism would probably require a whole essay for itself, but there's obviously only so much you can cover in 1000 words, and this essay at least flags that area as requiring consideration. -Dan | >
> | Driving across the country, two young graduate students were severely injured when a drunk driver collided head-on with their ’97 Buick. Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to render assistance if possible--at the very least to pick up the phone and call 911--be declared a criminal offense? In order to evaluate the value of Good Samaritan laws, the problems surrounding enforcement and the drafting of clear laws, coupled with objections based on notions of autonomy and liberty, must be weighed against concepts of moral duty and the desire to encourage positive social action. Although at first glance condemnation and criminal sanctions appear justified, ultimately such laws present more problems than solutions. | | | | |
<
< |
David Goldin just linked to this article in the DoingWrongByNotDoing discussion. It might be worth mentioning in your essay, although I'm not sure if it's 100% on point. The issue of how people interact, or don't interact, with homeless people raises additional questions about why this particular incident may have occurred. -- DanKarmel - 25 Apr 2010 | >
> | How They Work | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | Good Samaritan laws require that bystanders who can safely come to the aid of a victim, who is exposed to imminent physical danger, do so even if there is no special relationship between the victim and the rescuer. While common in European countries, Good Samaritan statutes that carry criminal penalties and create an affirmative duty to act, rather than simply absolve a volunteer of liability for an attempted rescue, have only been enacted in a handful of states in America. | | | | |
<
< | This article is a bit more on point - "In New York, as in most other states, there is no legal obligation for a bystander to help someone in distress, said Harold Takooshian, a psychology professor at Fordham University who has also studied the subject." - David | >
> | There are three basic models of criminal Good Samaritan laws: (i) states may enact expansive statutes that impose a duty to aid in the face of accident, “acts of God” and acts of criminal third parties, (ii) a more limited duty to report a felony in progress and a victim in need of assistance, or, (iii) the narrowest model, requiring only that a bystander report specific types of crimes that they witness or know of, predominately sexual assaults. | | | | |
<
< | -- DavidGoldin - 26 Apr 2010 | >
> | In Justification of Good Samaritan Laws | | | | |
<
< | Good Samaritan Laws | >
> | The criminal law system should, to a large degree, reflect the values of society. In order to have substantive effect, the system should, to the extent society deems it practicable, punish certain forms of anti-social behavior and encourage socially positive behavior. To not aid another, whether it is out of selfishness, apathy, or hurry, would normally be considered anti-social behavior that detracts from society as a whole. | | | | |
<
< | Driving across the country, two twenty-something grad students were blindsided by a drunk driver. He crossed over four lanes and collided head on with their ‘97 Buick. Aren't blindside and head on inconsistent? Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to aid if it was possible, or at the very least to pick up the phone and call for assistance, be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance, requiring individuals to aid their fellow man if possible appears moral, ultimately such laws would not serve a greater purpose or effectuate change. | >
> | Good Samaritan laws may be viewed as a demonstration of the importance of intervention within a community, and responsibility for your fellow man. It is true, however, that not every societal value is codified in our criminal law. It could be argued that laws that are largely symbolic, that do not actually affect how people behave in society, and which may ultimately cause more harm than good, should not be enacted. One must determine whether the philosophy behind Good Samaritan laws justifies the conflation of moral and legal duties. | | | | |
<
< | How They Work | >
> | Why they are Just Not Worth It | | | | |
<
< | Within the criminal legal system, Good Samaritan laws require that a person come to the aid of another who is exposed to imminent physical danger, even if there is no special relationship between the victim and the rescuer, if there is no danger of injury to the rescuer. While common in European countries, Good Samaritan statutes that carry criminal penalties and create an affirmative duty to act, rather than simply absolve a volunteer of liability for their attempted rescue, have only been enacted in a handful of states in America. | >
> | People who are inclined to help others, true Good Samaritans, will continue to do so regardless of whether there is legislation compelling them to act. “Bad” Samaritans, those who would ignore a victim without offering aid, either out of fear, insensitivity to others, a connection to the criminal perpetrating the act, or a prior record, will continue to do so regardless of whether their failure to affirmatively act has been legislated to be a misdemeanor. | | | | |
<
< | There are three basic models of criminal Good Samaritan laws. States may enact expansive statutes that impose a duty to aid in the face of accident, “Acts of God” and acts of criminal third parties, a more limited statute requiring a bystander only to report a felony in progress and a victim in need of assistance, or the narrowest model requiring only that a bystander report specific types of crimes that they witness or know of, predominately sexual assaults. | >
> | Supporters of these laws argue that they might help the undecided to act by reminding them of their moral and civic duty. These laws may also combat the so-called bystander effect, whereby people in the vicinity of an accident feel that it is the duty of their fellow bystanders to act, not themselves, or may anticipate mockery if they are the only ones to act. However, Good Samaritan Laws may also discourage those passive witnesses who originally chose to stay out of the situation from coming forward later with information due to fear of implicating themselves, while simultaneously providing leverage for the police to intimidate those within the vicinity of a crime into coming forward with information. While this type of intimidation may at first glance appear to be a useful tool in the police’s arsenal, it may also lead to more harassment or racial stereotyping within communities. | | | | |
<
< | In Justification of Good Samaritan Laws | >
> | From a purely practical standpoint, it is difficult for law enforcement to apply Good Samaritan laws, which may explain why they are so rarely enforced. In many instances, a prosecutor would have to find, and then prove, that a bystander who had already left the scene actually witnessed the victim’s plight, recognized the danger, and chose to violate their duty to assist. It would be difficult to prove who did and did not hear a victim’s scream, or to locate every vehicle whose driver may have had a cell phone but went zooming past an accident. Further, individuals present at the scene of a crime may experience fear or terror, and therefore have a legitimate defense that they did not think that they could act without putting themselves or loved ones in danger. In order to protect against arbitrary enforcement, prosecutors would also have to determine clear standards that passed the vagueness test of what constituted reasonable assistance in different circumstances. | | | | |
<
< | The criminal law system should, to a large degree, reflect the values of society. In order to have substantive effect, the system should punish what society considers anti-social behavior and encourage socially positive behavior. I don't think this is true. There are lots of things that society might think are anti-social that are not criminally punishable; lying, adultery (sometimes), not leaving tips in restaurants, profanity (sometimes), speaking loudly on your cellphone.... To not aid another, whether it is out of selfishness, fear, or hurry, would normally be considered anti-social behavior that detracts from society as a whole. I don't think it's fair to classify failure to aid out of fear as anti-social. | >
> | In addition to the burdens on law enforcement, there will be times when Good Samaritan laws may cause more harm than good. If citizens with no training in CPR or medical rescue believe that they will be punished for not assisting a victim in imminent need, they may blindly rush into a situation for which they have no preparation for, or practice in handling. The victim might very well sue in civil court for the further harm that was recklessly caused by his or her “rescuer”, but the damage will have already been inflicted. | | | | |
<
< | Good Samaritan laws may act as a clear community expression that cultivates an expectation of intervention, and a community ethos of responsibility for your fellow man. However, laws that are largely symbolic, that do not actually affect how people behave in society, and which may ultimately cause more harm than good, should not be enacted. | >
> | Good Samaritan laws may also be criticized for their philosophical basis. America is a country built on the idea of individual freedom and liberty. Good Samaritan laws can therefore be perceived as “forced altruism,” or as unwarranted state intervention into what should be a personal, moral choice. While proponents of Good Samaritan laws may argue that affirmative duties to act, such as a doctor’s duty to report suspected child abuse, do exist, the majority of criminal law punishes actions, rather than omissions or inaction. | | | | |
<
< | Why they are Just Not Worth It | | | | |
<
< | People who are inclined to help others, true good Samaritans, will continue to do so regardless of whether there is legislation compelling them to act. I tried to find statistics on how often people fail to rescue when appropriate. If you can find that information, I think it would be useful in framing how much some sort of law is needed. “Bad” Samaritans, those who would ignore a victim without offering aid, either out of fear, insensitivity to others, or a connection to the criminal perpetrating the act, will continue to do so regardless of whether their failure to affirmatively act has been legislated to be a minor misdemeanor. I don't think this is true. If failure to call the police when you drove by an accident were a $100 ticket, most people would call. And why would the sanction have to be only a misdemeanor? If failure to save a drowning child was statutorily defined as voluntary manslaughter, that would force even Holmes' bad man to act. Good Samaritan Laws may also discourage those passive witnesses who originally chose to stay out of the situation from coming forward later with information out of fear of implicating themselves, while simultaneously providing leverage for the police to intimidate those within the vicinity of a crime into coming forward with information. Is intimidate necessarily a fair way of portraying this? The police cut deals with minor offenders all the time in order to get to the bigger fish. If we assume that Bad Samaritans should be criminally punished, why is it bad that the police would use that as a way to get to the actual violent assailant? | >
> | Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | From a purely practical standpoint, it would be difficult for prosecutors to enforce Good Samaritan laws without incurring high costs, which may explain why they are so rarely enforced. I don't think this is true. When police arrive at an accident with a bunch of blocked cars, they could check everyone's cell phone before letting them pass to see if they had called. In other situations there may be cameras that can tell which cars have gone by. Or when bystanders actually do report an accident or crime, they could also report the bystanders who failed to aid. If we assume that failing to aid is a serious enough offense that it should be criminally sanctioned, the costs of enforcement don't seem prohibitive. In many instances a prosecutor would have to find, and then prove, that a bystander who had already left the scene actually witnessed the victim’s plight, recognized the danger, and chose to violate their duty to assist. Further, individuals present at the scene of a crime will often be terrified and therefore have a legitimate defense that they did not think that they could act without putting themselves or loved ones in danger. | >
> | To create a duty to assist and implement criminal sanctions against those who fail to uphold this duty, initially appears both correct and moral. Assuming that people follow the law as written, one could conclude that it would improve social welfare and remedy the dual problems that good will does not always come from within and that people may not always act in the best interest of society as a whole. In reality, however, Good Samaritan laws probably have very little effect on how people acted. Given difficulties such as enforcement and questions of personal autonomy, the enactment of broad duties to aid which carry criminal sentences cannot be justified simply by their ability to act as a moral compass. | | | | |
<
< | There will be times, in the case of accidents in particular, when Good Samaritan laws may cause more harm to a victim in need than good. I think I remember a statistic like this from our Torts class last term and I couldn't find it. I'm going to check again though. . If citizens with no training in CPR or medical rescue believe that they will be punished for not assisting a victim in imminent need if they can do so without risk of personal harm, they may blindly rush into a situation that they have no preparation for or practice in handling. The victim might very well sue in civil court for the further harm that was recklessly caused by his or her “rescuer”, but the damage will have already been inflicted. | | | | |
<
< | America is a country built on the idea of individual freedom and liberty. Good Samaritan laws can therefore be perceived as “forced altruism,” or as unwarranted state intervention into what should be a personal choice. While we do not have a right to act without awareness of the consequences of our actions, do we have a duty to be alert to our fellow man at all times? Or rather, are we free to shut down our alertness and is that freedom compromised by the risk of being help criminally liable if we fail to come to the assistance of someone in need. It isn't clear to me what distinctions are being drawn in the last two sentences. What's the difference between not having a right to act without awareness but having a right to not be alert at all times?
Conclusion
To create a duty to assist and implement criminal sanctions against those who fail to uphold this duty, appears facially to be both correct and moral. Assuming that people follow the law as written, one could conclude that it would improve social welfare and remedy the dual problems that good will does not always come from within and that people may not always act in the best interest of society as a whole. Good Samaritan laws in actuality would probably have very little effect on how people acted, if not have a negative effect. While it is true that societies are more than just a collection of individuals, the enactment of broad duties to render aid which carry criminal sentences cannot be justified simply from their ability to act as moral symbols; it must come from their power to affect behavior is some positive way.
-- SuzanneSciarra - 16 Apr 2010
Good Samaritan Laws
Driving across the country, two young graduate students were severely injured when their car was struck by a drunk driver. Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. Should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and render possible aid be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance such condemnation may appear justified, there are several reasons to withhold judgment. First, we must consider the bystander effect, sometimes called the “Genovese effect,” after the infamous New York City murder of Kitty Genovese. Additionally, it is unclear that bystanders without medical expertise would have been able to do anything to assist the injured travelers, or that they wouldn’t have caused more harm in the process. In the midst of a heavily damaged vehicle, they may have even been reasonably concerned for their own safety. Finally, we must consider theoretical objections based on our notions of autonomy and liberty.
How They Work
Good Samaritan laws state that a person who can safely come to the aid of someone exposed to imminent physical danger is required to do so, even if there is no special relationship between the victim and the rescuer. While common in European countries, Good Samaritan statutes that carry criminal penalties and create an affirmative duty to act, rather than simply absolve a volunteer of liability for their attempted rescue, have only been enacted in a handful of states in America.
There are three basic models of criminal Good Samaritan laws: states may enact expansive statutes that impose a duty to aid, they may require a more limited duty to report a felony in progress and a victim in need of assistance, or, the narrowest version, they may require a bystander to report only specific types of crimes that they witness or know of, predominately sexual assaults.
In Justification Of Good Samaritan Laws
The criminal law system should, to a large degree, reflect the values of society. Good Samaritan laws may act as a clear community expression that cultivates an expectation of intervention, and a community ethos of responsibility for your fellow man. Yet not every societal value judgment is codified in our criminal law. Adultery, for example, is no longer criminal in many American jurisdictions, and rarely enforced where it still exists on the books. In this light, we must determine whether the philosophy of being a Good Samaritan transcends moral and cultural norms to the point that it should be fortified as criminal law.
Why They Are Just Not Worth It
The failure to act is often times not the reflection of any sort of character failing, but rather the product of a common psychological phenomenon called the bystander effect. One of the key ways in which this manifests itself is diffusion of responsibility, where people in the vicinity of the accident feel like responsibility is shared among all parties there. In this situation, even someone who may feel personally compelled to help may understandably assume that one of the many people there has already called the police and that everything that can be done is being done. This is important for two reasons. First, it mitigates the type of normative character judgment that we generally want to see in any sort of societal sanction, and especially in a criminal sanction. Second, it offers a practical consideration since, when many bystanders have witnessed an accident or crime, there is a good chance that someone – or a few people – has already taken the initiative to call the police. In that instance, emergency services do not want any more phone calls, and to have dozens or hundreds of bystanders calling the police for fear of criminal retribution would create a huge burden for emergency services.
In addition to the burdens on law enforcement and emergency workers, there will be times when Good Samaritan laws may cause more harm to a victim than good. If citizens with no training in CPR or medical rescue believe that they will be punished for not assisting a victim in imminent need, they may blindly rush into a situation where they are not qualified to help. Further, individuals present at the scene of a crime will often be terrified and therefore have a legitimate defense that they did not think that they could act without putting themselves or loved ones in danger. From the perspective of legal enforcement after a felony, Good Samaritan Laws may also discourage those passive witnesses who originally chose to stay out of the situation from coming forward later with information out of fear of implicating themselves.
Finally, one of the major objections to a legally mandatory duty to aid is based in a philosophy of individual autonomy. America is a country built on the idea of individual freedom and liberty. Good Samaritan laws can therefore be perceived as “forced altruism,” or as unwarranted state intervention into what should be a personal choice. Do we have a responsibility for the well-being of our fellow man at all times? If so, is that belief so grounded in the core of our value system that those who disagree ought to face criminal liability?
Conclusion
To create a duty to assist and then implement criminal sanctions against those who fail to uphold this duty may initially appear to be the correct decision. Yet in light of the countervailing arguments and mitigating factors that would be present in any given situation, it seems that to make such a moral judgment part of the criminal code would be unjustified, and would possibly even aggravate many of the harms that it attempts to alleviate.
-- DanKarmel - 22 Apr 2010 | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | *As a side note, while editing this paper for the second time I found the story of one families quest to get a Good Samaritan law passed in Washington State following the death of their son. If anyone is interested, you can find it here. |
|
|
SuzanneSciarraSecondPaper 9 - 26 Apr 2010 - Main.DavidGoldin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | |
David Goldin just linked to this article in the DoingWrongByNotDoing discussion. It might be worth mentioning in your essay, although I'm not sure if it's 100% on point. The issue of how people interact, or don't interact, with homeless people raises additional questions about why this particular incident may have occurred. -- DanKarmel - 25 Apr 2010 | |
>
> |
This article is a bit more on point - "In New York, as in most other states, there is no legal obligation for a bystander to help someone in distress, said Harold Takooshian, a psychology professor at Fordham University who has also studied the subject." - David
-- DavidGoldin - 26 Apr 2010 | | | Good Samaritan Laws
Driving across the country, two twenty-something grad students were blindsided by a drunk driver. He crossed over four lanes and collided head on with their ‘97 Buick. Aren't blindside and head on inconsistent? Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to aid if it was possible, or at the very least to pick up the phone and call for assistance, be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance, requiring individuals to aid their fellow man if possible appears moral, ultimately such laws would not serve a greater purpose or effectuate change. |
|
|
SuzanneSciarraSecondPaper 8 - 25 Apr 2010 - Main.DanKarmel
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | I think this essay addresses a lot of the key practical arguments against mandatory Good Samaritan laws. The debate about ideology and forced altruism would probably require a whole essay for itself, but there's obviously only so much you can cover in 1000 words, and this essay at least flags that area as requiring consideration. -Dan | |
>
> |
David Goldin just linked to this article in the DoingWrongByNotDoing discussion. It might be worth mentioning in your essay, although I'm not sure if it's 100% on point. The issue of how people interact, or don't interact, with homeless people raises additional questions about why this particular incident may have occurred. -- DanKarmel - 25 Apr 2010 | | | Good Samaritan Laws
Driving across the country, two twenty-something grad students were blindsided by a drunk driver. He crossed over four lanes and collided head on with their ‘97 Buick. Aren't blindside and head on inconsistent? Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to aid if it was possible, or at the very least to pick up the phone and call for assistance, be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance, requiring individuals to aid their fellow man if possible appears moral, ultimately such laws would not serve a greater purpose or effectuate change. |
|
|
SuzanneSciarraSecondPaper 7 - 23 Apr 2010 - Main.DanKarmel
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Suzanne, this isn't my final version yet. I'll change this heading when it is. I'm going through and making comments and then also including the rewrite at the bottom. -Dan | >
> | Suzanne, please feel free to give me any feedback you'd like regarding what I've written. If there's anything you'd like me to address or correct before you do your rewrite, I am happy to.
I think this essay addresses a lot of the key practical arguments against mandatory Good Samaritan laws. The debate about ideology and forced altruism would probably require a whole essay for itself, but there's obviously only so much you can cover in 1000 words, and this essay at least flags that area as requiring consideration. -Dan | | | Good Samaritan Laws
Driving across the country, two twenty-something grad students were blindsided by a drunk driver. He crossed over four lanes and collided head on with their ‘97 Buick. Aren't blindside and head on inconsistent? Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to aid if it was possible, or at the very least to pick up the phone and call for assistance, be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance, requiring individuals to aid their fellow man if possible appears moral, ultimately such laws would not serve a greater purpose or effectuate change. | | | People who are inclined to help others, true good Samaritans, will continue to do so regardless of whether there is legislation compelling them to act. I tried to find statistics on how often people fail to rescue when appropriate. If you can find that information, I think it would be useful in framing how much some sort of law is needed. “Bad” Samaritans, those who would ignore a victim without offering aid, either out of fear, insensitivity to others, or a connection to the criminal perpetrating the act, will continue to do so regardless of whether their failure to affirmatively act has been legislated to be a minor misdemeanor. I don't think this is true. If failure to call the police when you drove by an accident were a $100 ticket, most people would call. And why would the sanction have to be only a misdemeanor? If failure to save a drowning child was statutorily defined as voluntary manslaughter, that would force even Holmes' bad man to act. Good Samaritan Laws may also discourage those passive witnesses who originally chose to stay out of the situation from coming forward later with information out of fear of implicating themselves, while simultaneously providing leverage for the police to intimidate those within the vicinity of a crime into coming forward with information. Is intimidate necessarily a fair way of portraying this? The police cut deals with minor offenders all the time in order to get to the bigger fish. If we assume that Bad Samaritans should be criminally punished, why is it bad that the police would use that as a way to get to the actual violent assailant? | |
<
< | From a purely practical standpoint, it would be difficult for prosecutors to enforce Good Samaritan laws without incurring high costs, which may explain why they are so rarely enforced. I don't think this is true. When police arrive at an accident with a bunch of blocked cars, they could check everyone's cell phone before letting them pass to see if they had called. In other situations there may be cameras that can tell which cars have gone by. Or when bystanders actually do report an accident or crime, they could also report the crime of bystanders who failed to aid. If we assume that failing to aid is a serious enough offense that it should be criminally sanctioned, the costs of enforcement don't seem prohibitive. In many instances a prosecutor would have to find, and then prove, that a bystander who had already left the scene actually witnessed the victim’s plight, recognized the danger, and chose to violate their duty to assist. Further, individuals present at the scene of a crime will often be terrified and therefore have a legitimate defense that they did not think that they could act without putting themselves or loved ones in danger. | >
> | From a purely practical standpoint, it would be difficult for prosecutors to enforce Good Samaritan laws without incurring high costs, which may explain why they are so rarely enforced. I don't think this is true. When police arrive at an accident with a bunch of blocked cars, they could check everyone's cell phone before letting them pass to see if they had called. In other situations there may be cameras that can tell which cars have gone by. Or when bystanders actually do report an accident or crime, they could also report the bystanders who failed to aid. If we assume that failing to aid is a serious enough offense that it should be criminally sanctioned, the costs of enforcement don't seem prohibitive. In many instances a prosecutor would have to find, and then prove, that a bystander who had already left the scene actually witnessed the victim’s plight, recognized the danger, and chose to violate their duty to assist. Further, individuals present at the scene of a crime will often be terrified and therefore have a legitimate defense that they did not think that they could act without putting themselves or loved ones in danger. | | | There will be times, in the case of accidents in particular, when Good Samaritan laws may cause more harm to a victim in need than good. I think I remember a statistic like this from our Torts class last term and I couldn't find it. I'm going to check again though. . If citizens with no training in CPR or medical rescue believe that they will be punished for not assisting a victim in imminent need if they can do so without risk of personal harm, they may blindly rush into a situation that they have no preparation for or practice in handling. The victim might very well sue in civil court for the further harm that was recklessly caused by his or her “rescuer”, but the damage will have already been inflicted. | | | Good Samaritan Laws | |
<
< | Driving across the country, two young graduate students were severely injured when their car was struck by a drunk driver. Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. Should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and render possible aid be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance this may appear to be a moral failing, there are several reasons to withhold judgment. First must be a consideration of the bystander effect, sometimes referred to as the “Genovese effect,” named after the famous New York City murder of Kitty Genovese. Additionally, it is unclear that bystanders without medical expertise would have been able to do anything to assist the injured travelers, or that they wouldn’t have caused more harm in the process. In the midst of a heavily damaged vehicle, they may have even been reasonably concerned for their own safety in case the car caught fire. Finally, we must consider theoretical objections based on our notions of autonomy and liberty. | >
> | Driving across the country, two young graduate students were severely injured when their car was struck by a drunk driver. Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. Should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and render possible aid be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance such condemnation may appear justified, there are several reasons to withhold judgment. First, we must consider the bystander effect, sometimes called the “Genovese effect,” after the infamous New York City murder of Kitty Genovese. Additionally, it is unclear that bystanders without medical expertise would have been able to do anything to assist the injured travelers, or that they wouldn’t have caused more harm in the process. In the midst of a heavily damaged vehicle, they may have even been reasonably concerned for their own safety. Finally, we must consider theoretical objections based on our notions of autonomy and liberty. | | | How They Work | |
<
< | Good Samaritan laws state that a person who can safely come to the aid of a someone exposed to imminent physical danger is required to do so, even if there is no special relationship between the victim and the rescuer. While common in European countries, Good Samaritan statutes that carry criminal penalties and create an affirmative duty to act, rather than simply absolve a volunteer of liability for their attempted rescue, have only been enacted in a handful of states in America. | >
> | Good Samaritan laws state that a person who can safely come to the aid of someone exposed to imminent physical danger is required to do so, even if there is no special relationship between the victim and the rescuer. While common in European countries, Good Samaritan statutes that carry criminal penalties and create an affirmative duty to act, rather than simply absolve a volunteer of liability for their attempted rescue, have only been enacted in a handful of states in America. | | | | |
<
< | There are three basic models of criminal Good Samaritan laws. States may enact expansive statutes that impose a duty to aid, they may require a more limited duty to report a felony in progress and a victim in need of assistance, or, the narrowest version, they may require a bystander to report only specific types of crimes that they witness or know of, predominately sexual assaults. | >
> | There are three basic models of criminal Good Samaritan laws: states may enact expansive statutes that impose a duty to aid, they may require a more limited duty to report a felony in progress and a victim in need of assistance, or, the narrowest version, they may require a bystander to report only specific types of crimes that they witness or know of, predominately sexual assaults. | | | | |
<
< | In Justification of Good Samaritan Laws | >
> | In Justification Of Good Samaritan Laws | | | The criminal law system should, to a large degree, reflect the values of society. Good Samaritan laws may act as a clear community expression that cultivates an expectation of intervention, and a community ethos of responsibility for your fellow man. Yet not every societal value judgment is codified in our criminal law. Adultery, for example, is no longer criminal in many American jurisdictions, and rarely enforced where it still exists on the books. In this light, we must determine whether the philosophy of being a Good Samaritan transcends moral and cultural norms to the point that it should be fortified as criminal law.
Why They Are Just Not Worth It | |
<
< | The failure to act is often times not the reflection of any sort of character failing, but rather the product of a common psychological phenomenon called the bystander effect. One of the key ways in which this manifests itself is diffusion of responsibility, where people in the vicinity of the accident feel like responsibility is shared among all parties there. In this situation, even someone who may feel personally compelled to help may reasonably assume that one of the many people there has already called the police and that everything that can be done is being done. This is important for two reasons. First, it mitigates the type of normative character judgment that we generally want to see in any sort of societal sanction, and especially in a criminal sanction. Second, it offers a practical consideration since, when many bystanders have witnessed an accident or crime, there actually is a good chance that someone – or a few people – have taken the initiative to call the police. In that instance, emergency services do not want any more phone calls, and to have dozens or hundreds of bystanders calling the police for fear of criminal retribution would enact a huge burden upon emergency services. | >
> | The failure to act is often times not the reflection of any sort of character failing, but rather the product of a common psychological phenomenon called the bystander effect. One of the key ways in which this manifests itself is diffusion of responsibility, where people in the vicinity of the accident feel like responsibility is shared among all parties there. In this situation, even someone who may feel personally compelled to help may understandably assume that one of the many people there has already called the police and that everything that can be done is being done. This is important for two reasons. First, it mitigates the type of normative character judgment that we generally want to see in any sort of societal sanction, and especially in a criminal sanction. Second, it offers a practical consideration since, when many bystanders have witnessed an accident or crime, there is a good chance that someone – or a few people – has already taken the initiative to call the police. In that instance, emergency services do not want any more phone calls, and to have dozens or hundreds of bystanders calling the police for fear of criminal retribution would create a huge burden for emergency services. | | | In addition to the burdens on law enforcement and emergency workers, there will be times when Good Samaritan laws may cause more harm to a victim than good. If citizens with no training in CPR or medical rescue believe that they will be punished for not assisting a victim in imminent need, they may blindly rush into a situation where they are not qualified to help. Further, individuals present at the scene of a crime will often be terrified and therefore have a legitimate defense that they did not think that they could act without putting themselves or loved ones in danger. From the perspective of legal enforcement after a felony, Good Samaritan Laws may also discourage those passive witnesses who originally chose to stay out of the situation from coming forward later with information out of fear of implicating themselves. | |
<
< | Finally, one of the major objections to suggestions of a legally mandatory duty to aid is based in a philosophy of individual autonomy. America is a country built on the idea of individual freedom and liberty. Good Samaritan laws can therefore be perceived as “forced altruism,” or as unwarranted state intervention into what should be a personal choice. Do we have a responsibility for the well-being of our fellow man at all times? If so, is that belief so grounded in the core of our value system that those who disagree ought to face criminal liability? | >
> | Finally, one of the major objections to a legally mandatory duty to aid is based in a philosophy of individual autonomy. America is a country built on the idea of individual freedom and liberty. Good Samaritan laws can therefore be perceived as “forced altruism,” or as unwarranted state intervention into what should be a personal choice. Do we have a responsibility for the well-being of our fellow man at all times? If so, is that belief so grounded in the core of our value system that those who disagree ought to face criminal liability? | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | To create a duty to assist and implement criminal sanctions against those who fail to uphold this duty may initially appear to be the correct decision. Yet in light of the countervailing arguments and mitigating factors that would be present in any given situation, it seems that to make such a moral value judgment part of the criminal code would be unjustified, and would possibly even aggravate many of the harms that it attempts to alleviate. | >
> | To create a duty to assist and then implement criminal sanctions against those who fail to uphold this duty may initially appear to be the correct decision. Yet in light of the countervailing arguments and mitigating factors that would be present in any given situation, it seems that to make such a moral judgment part of the criminal code would be unjustified, and would possibly even aggravate many of the harms that it attempts to alleviate. | | | -- DanKarmel - 22 Apr 2010 |
|
|
SuzanneSciarraSecondPaper 6 - 22 Apr 2010 - Main.DanKarmel
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | Suzanne, this isn't my final version yet. I'll change this heading when it is. I'm going through and making comments and then also including the rewrite at the bottom. -Dan | | | Good Samaritan Laws | |
<
< | Driving across the country, two twenty-something grad students were blindsided by a drunk driver. He crossed over four lanes and collided head on with their ‘97 Buick. Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to aid if it was possible, or at the very least to pick up the phone and call for assistance, be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance, requiring individuals to aid their fellow man if possible appears moral, ultimately such laws would not serve a greater purpose or effectuate change. | >
> | Driving across the country, two twenty-something grad students were blindsided by a drunk driver. He crossed over four lanes and collided head on with their ‘97 Buick. Aren't blindside and head on inconsistent? Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to aid if it was possible, or at the very least to pick up the phone and call for assistance, be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance, requiring individuals to aid their fellow man if possible appears moral, ultimately such laws would not serve a greater purpose or effectuate change. | | | How They Work | | | In Justification of Good Samaritan Laws | |
<
< | The criminal law system should, to a large degree, reflect the values of society. In order to have substantive effect, the system should punish what society considers anti-social behavior and encourage socially positive behavior. To not aid another, whether it is out of selfishness, fear, or hurry, would normally be considered anti-social behavior that detracts from society as a whole. | >
> | The criminal law system should, to a large degree, reflect the values of society. In order to have substantive effect, the system should punish what society considers anti-social behavior and encourage socially positive behavior. I don't think this is true. There are lots of things that society might think are anti-social that are not criminally punishable; lying, adultery (sometimes), not leaving tips in restaurants, profanity (sometimes), speaking loudly on your cellphone.... To not aid another, whether it is out of selfishness, fear, or hurry, would normally be considered anti-social behavior that detracts from society as a whole. I don't think it's fair to classify failure to aid out of fear as anti-social. | | | Good Samaritan laws may act as a clear community expression that cultivates an expectation of intervention, and a community ethos of responsibility for your fellow man. However, laws that are largely symbolic, that do not actually affect how people behave in society, and which may ultimately cause more harm than good, should not be enacted.
Why they are Just Not Worth It | |
<
< | People who are inclined to help others, true good Samaritans, will continue to do so regardless of whether there is legislation compelling them to act. “Bad” Samaritans, those who would ignore a victim without offering aid, either out of fear, insensitivity to others, or a connection to the criminal perpetrating the act, will continue to do so regardless of whether their failure to affirmatively act has been legislated to be a minor misdemeanor. Good Samaritan Laws may also discourage those passive witnesses who originally chose to stay out of the situation from coming forward later with information out of fear of implicating themselves, while simultaneously providing leverage for the police to intimidate those within the vicinity of a crime into coming forward with information. | >
> | People who are inclined to help others, true good Samaritans, will continue to do so regardless of whether there is legislation compelling them to act. I tried to find statistics on how often people fail to rescue when appropriate. If you can find that information, I think it would be useful in framing how much some sort of law is needed. “Bad” Samaritans, those who would ignore a victim without offering aid, either out of fear, insensitivity to others, or a connection to the criminal perpetrating the act, will continue to do so regardless of whether their failure to affirmatively act has been legislated to be a minor misdemeanor. I don't think this is true. If failure to call the police when you drove by an accident were a $100 ticket, most people would call. And why would the sanction have to be only a misdemeanor? If failure to save a drowning child was statutorily defined as voluntary manslaughter, that would force even Holmes' bad man to act. Good Samaritan Laws may also discourage those passive witnesses who originally chose to stay out of the situation from coming forward later with information out of fear of implicating themselves, while simultaneously providing leverage for the police to intimidate those within the vicinity of a crime into coming forward with information. Is intimidate necessarily a fair way of portraying this? The police cut deals with minor offenders all the time in order to get to the bigger fish. If we assume that Bad Samaritans should be criminally punished, why is it bad that the police would use that as a way to get to the actual violent assailant? | | | | |
<
< | From a purely practical standpoint, it would be difficult for prosecutors to enforce
Good Samaritan laws without incurring high costs, which may explain why they are so rarely enforced. In many instances a prosecutor would have to find, and then prove, that a bystander who had already left the scene actually witnessed the victim’s plight, recognized the danger, and chose to violate their duty to assist. Further, individuals present at the scene of a crime will often be terrified and therefore have a legitimate defense that they did not think that they could act without putting themselves or loved ones in danger. | >
> | From a purely practical standpoint, it would be difficult for prosecutors to enforce Good Samaritan laws without incurring high costs, which may explain why they are so rarely enforced. I don't think this is true. When police arrive at an accident with a bunch of blocked cars, they could check everyone's cell phone before letting them pass to see if they had called. In other situations there may be cameras that can tell which cars have gone by. Or when bystanders actually do report an accident or crime, they could also report the crime of bystanders who failed to aid. If we assume that failing to aid is a serious enough offense that it should be criminally sanctioned, the costs of enforcement don't seem prohibitive. In many instances a prosecutor would have to find, and then prove, that a bystander who had already left the scene actually witnessed the victim’s plight, recognized the danger, and chose to violate their duty to assist. Further, individuals present at the scene of a crime will often be terrified and therefore have a legitimate defense that they did not think that they could act without putting themselves or loved ones in danger. | | | | |
<
< | There will be times, in the case of accidents in particular, when Good Samaritan laws may cause more harm to a victim in need than good. If citizens with no training in CPR or medical rescue believe that they will be punished for not assisting a victim in imminent need if they can do so without risk of personal harm, they may blindly rush into a situation that they have no preparation for or practice in handling. The victim might very well sue in civil court for the further harm that was recklessly caused by his or her “rescuer”, but the damage will have already been inflicted. | >
> | There will be times, in the case of accidents in particular, when Good Samaritan laws may cause more harm to a victim in need than good. I think I remember a statistic like this from our Torts class last term and I couldn't find it. I'm going to check again though. . If citizens with no training in CPR or medical rescue believe that they will be punished for not assisting a victim in imminent need if they can do so without risk of personal harm, they may blindly rush into a situation that they have no preparation for or practice in handling. The victim might very well sue in civil court for the further harm that was recklessly caused by his or her “rescuer”, but the damage will have already been inflicted. | | | | |
<
< | America is a country built on the idea of individual freedom and liberty. Good Samaritan laws can therefore be perceived as “forced altruism,” or as unwarranted state intervention into what should be a personal choice. While we do not have a right to act without awareness of the consequences of our actions, do we have a duty to be alert to our fellow man at all times? Or rather, are we free to shut down our alertness and is that freedom compromised by the risk of being help criminally liable if we fail to come to the assistance of someone in need. | >
> | America is a country built on the idea of individual freedom and liberty. Good Samaritan laws can therefore be perceived as “forced altruism,” or as unwarranted state intervention into what should be a personal choice. While we do not have a right to act without awareness of the consequences of our actions, do we have a duty to be alert to our fellow man at all times? Or rather, are we free to shut down our alertness and is that freedom compromised by the risk of being help criminally liable if we fail to come to the assistance of someone in need. It isn't clear to me what distinctions are being drawn in the last two sentences. What's the difference between not having a right to act without awareness but having a right to not be alert at all times? | | | Conclusion
To create a duty to assist and implement criminal sanctions against those who fail to uphold this duty, appears facially to be both correct and moral. Assuming that people follow the law as written, one could conclude that it would improve social welfare and remedy the dual problems that good will does not always come from within and that people may not always act in the best interest of society as a whole. Good Samaritan laws in actuality would probably have very little effect on how people acted, if not have a negative effect. While it is true that societies are more than just a collection of individuals, the enactment of broad duties to render aid which carry criminal sentences cannot be justified simply from their ability to act as moral symbols; it must come from their power to affect behavior is some positive way. | |
>
> | -- SuzanneSciarra - 16 Apr 2010 | | | | |
>
> | | | | | |
>
> | Good Samaritan Laws | | | | |
<
< | -- SuzanneSciarra - 16 Apr 2010 | >
> | Driving across the country, two young graduate students were severely injured when their car was struck by a drunk driver. Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. Should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and render possible aid be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance this may appear to be a moral failing, there are several reasons to withhold judgment. First must be a consideration of the bystander effect, sometimes referred to as the “Genovese effect,” named after the famous New York City murder of Kitty Genovese. Additionally, it is unclear that bystanders without medical expertise would have been able to do anything to assist the injured travelers, or that they wouldn’t have caused more harm in the process. In the midst of a heavily damaged vehicle, they may have even been reasonably concerned for their own safety in case the car caught fire. Finally, we must consider theoretical objections based on our notions of autonomy and liberty.
How They Work
Good Samaritan laws state that a person who can safely come to the aid of a someone exposed to imminent physical danger is required to do so, even if there is no special relationship between the victim and the rescuer. While common in European countries, Good Samaritan statutes that carry criminal penalties and create an affirmative duty to act, rather than simply absolve a volunteer of liability for their attempted rescue, have only been enacted in a handful of states in America.
There are three basic models of criminal Good Samaritan laws. States may enact expansive statutes that impose a duty to aid, they may require a more limited duty to report a felony in progress and a victim in need of assistance, or, the narrowest version, they may require a bystander to report only specific types of crimes that they witness or know of, predominately sexual assaults.
In Justification of Good Samaritan Laws
The criminal law system should, to a large degree, reflect the values of society. Good Samaritan laws may act as a clear community expression that cultivates an expectation of intervention, and a community ethos of responsibility for your fellow man. Yet not every societal value judgment is codified in our criminal law. Adultery, for example, is no longer criminal in many American jurisdictions, and rarely enforced where it still exists on the books. In this light, we must determine whether the philosophy of being a Good Samaritan transcends moral and cultural norms to the point that it should be fortified as criminal law.
Why They Are Just Not Worth It
The failure to act is often times not the reflection of any sort of character failing, but rather the product of a common psychological phenomenon called the bystander effect. One of the key ways in which this manifests itself is diffusion of responsibility, where people in the vicinity of the accident feel like responsibility is shared among all parties there. In this situation, even someone who may feel personally compelled to help may reasonably assume that one of the many people there has already called the police and that everything that can be done is being done. This is important for two reasons. First, it mitigates the type of normative character judgment that we generally want to see in any sort of societal sanction, and especially in a criminal sanction. Second, it offers a practical consideration since, when many bystanders have witnessed an accident or crime, there actually is a good chance that someone – or a few people – have taken the initiative to call the police. In that instance, emergency services do not want any more phone calls, and to have dozens or hundreds of bystanders calling the police for fear of criminal retribution would enact a huge burden upon emergency services.
In addition to the burdens on law enforcement and emergency workers, there will be times when Good Samaritan laws may cause more harm to a victim than good. If citizens with no training in CPR or medical rescue believe that they will be punished for not assisting a victim in imminent need, they may blindly rush into a situation where they are not qualified to help. Further, individuals present at the scene of a crime will often be terrified and therefore have a legitimate defense that they did not think that they could act without putting themselves or loved ones in danger. From the perspective of legal enforcement after a felony, Good Samaritan Laws may also discourage those passive witnesses who originally chose to stay out of the situation from coming forward later with information out of fear of implicating themselves.
Finally, one of the major objections to suggestions of a legally mandatory duty to aid is based in a philosophy of individual autonomy. America is a country built on the idea of individual freedom and liberty. Good Samaritan laws can therefore be perceived as “forced altruism,” or as unwarranted state intervention into what should be a personal choice. Do we have a responsibility for the well-being of our fellow man at all times? If so, is that belief so grounded in the core of our value system that those who disagree ought to face criminal liability?
Conclusion
To create a duty to assist and implement criminal sanctions against those who fail to uphold this duty may initially appear to be the correct decision. Yet in light of the countervailing arguments and mitigating factors that would be present in any given situation, it seems that to make such a moral value judgment part of the criminal code would be unjustified, and would possibly even aggravate many of the harms that it attempts to alleviate.
-- DanKarmel - 22 Apr 2010 |
|
|
SuzanneSciarraSecondPaper 5 - 20 Apr 2010 - Main.SuzanneSciarra
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Good Samaritan Laws | |
<
< | Driving across the country to visit college friends, two twenty-something grad students were blindsided by a drunk driver. He crossed over four lanes and collided head on with their dark green ‘97 Buick. The young victim driving did not remember very much in the aftermath beyond wondering if she could move her legs, and the faint smell of the airbag pressed up against her. Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to aid if it was possible, or at the very least to pick up the phone and call for assistance, be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance, requiring individuals to aid their fellow man if possible appears moral, ultimately such laws would not serve a greater purpose or effectuate change. | >
> | Driving across the country, two twenty-something grad students were blindsided by a drunk driver. He crossed over four lanes and collided head on with their ‘97 Buick. Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to aid if it was possible, or at the very least to pick up the phone and call for assistance, be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance, requiring individuals to aid their fellow man if possible appears moral, ultimately such laws would not serve a greater purpose or effectuate change. | | | How They Work | |
<
< | Within the criminal legal system, Good Samaritan laws require that a person come to the aid of another who is exposed to imminent physical danger, even if there is no special relationship between the victim and the rescuer, if there is no danger of injury to the rescuer. While common in European countries, such as France and Germany, Good Samaritan statutes that carry criminal penalties and create an affirmative duty to act, rather than simply absolve a volunteer of liability for their attempted rescue, have only been enacted in a handful of states in America. | >
> | Within the criminal legal system, Good Samaritan laws require that a person come to the aid of another who is exposed to imminent physical danger, even if there is no special relationship between the victim and the rescuer, if there is no danger of injury to the rescuer. While common in European countries, Good Samaritan statutes that carry criminal penalties and create an affirmative duty to act, rather than simply absolve a volunteer of liability for their attempted rescue, have only been enacted in a handful of states in America. | | | | |
<
< | A minority of States has adopted one of three basic models of criminal Good Samaritan laws. States may enact expansive statutes that impose a duty to aid in the face of accident, “Acts of God” and acts of criminal third parties, a more limited statute requiring a bystander only to report a felony in progress and a victim in need of assistance, or the narrowest model requiring only that a bystander report specific types of crimes that they witness or know of, predominately sexual assaults. | >
> | There are three basic models of criminal Good Samaritan laws. States may enact expansive statutes that impose a duty to aid in the face of accident, “Acts of God” and acts of criminal third parties, a more limited statute requiring a bystander only to report a felony in progress and a victim in need of assistance, or the narrowest model requiring only that a bystander report specific types of crimes that they witness or know of, predominately sexual assaults. | | | In Justification of Good Samaritan Laws | |
<
< | The criminal law system should, to a large degree, reflect the values of society. In order to have substantive effect, the system should punish what society considers anti-social behavior. In an ideal world, everyone would naturally want to come to the aid of his or her fellow human beings. To do otherwise, whether it is out of selfishness, fear, or hurry, would normally be considered anti-social behavior that detracts from society as a whole. Criminal statutes, such as Good Samaritan laws, would benefit society if they encouraged people to assist others, as well as, from a retributivist perspective, punish what society has deemed morally culpable actions. | >
> | The criminal law system should, to a large degree, reflect the values of society. In order to have substantive effect, the system should punish what society considers anti-social behavior and encourage socially positive behavior. To not aid another, whether it is out of selfishness, fear, or hurry, would normally be considered anti-social behavior that detracts from society as a whole. | | | | |
<
< | Good Samaritan laws may act as a clear community expression that cultivates an expectation of intervention, and a community ethos of responsibility for your fellow man. Further, we are a part of a greater, connection community and the community, in order to function properly, may compel things from individuals that they do not want to do. However, laws that are largely symbolic, that do not actually affect how people behave in society, and which may ultimately cause more harm than good, should not be enacted. | >
> | Good Samaritan laws may act as a clear community expression that cultivates an expectation of intervention, and a community ethos of responsibility for your fellow man. However, laws that are largely symbolic, that do not actually affect how people behave in society, and which may ultimately cause more harm than good, should not be enacted. | | | Why they are Just Not Worth It | |
<
< | People who are inclined to help others, true good Samaritans, will continue to do so regardless of whether there is legislation compelling them to act. “Bad” Samaritans, those who would ignore a victim without offering aid, either out of fear, insensitivity to others, or a connection to the criminal perpetrating the act, will continue to do so regardless of whether their failure to affirmatively act has been legislated to be a minor misdemeanor.
By criminalizing a failure to call for assistance or provide aid at the time of an accident or crime, the law may also discourage those witnesses who originally chose to stay out of the situation from acting if they reconsider their decision. A fear of criminal sanctions may prevent these potential witnesses from coming forward and providing information to the authorities, as they do not want to implicate themselves in turn. Good Samaritan laws may simultaneously also provide leverage for the police to intimidate people into coming forward with information. | >
> | People who are inclined to help others, true good Samaritans, will continue to do so regardless of whether there is legislation compelling them to act. “Bad” Samaritans, those who would ignore a victim without offering aid, either out of fear, insensitivity to others, or a connection to the criminal perpetrating the act, will continue to do so regardless of whether their failure to affirmatively act has been legislated to be a minor misdemeanor. Good Samaritan Laws may also discourage those passive witnesses who originally chose to stay out of the situation from coming forward later with information out of fear of implicating themselves, while simultaneously providing leverage for the police to intimidate those within the vicinity of a crime into coming forward with information. | | | From a purely practical standpoint, it would be difficult for prosecutors to enforce | |
<
< | Good Samaritan laws without incurring high costs, which may explain why they are so rarely enforced in the few states that have enacted them. In many instances a prosecutor would have to find, and then prove, that a bystander who had already left the scene actually witnessed the victim’s plight, recognized the danger, and chose to violate his or her duty to provide aid or call for assistance. Further, most people are going to be terrified in a situation where they witness a crime. They will therefore have a legitimate defense within a state that has Good Samaritan laws that they did not think they could act without putting themselves or loved ones in danger. | >
> | Good Samaritan laws without incurring high costs, which may explain why they are so rarely enforced. In many instances a prosecutor would have to find, and then prove, that a bystander who had already left the scene actually witnessed the victim’s plight, recognized the danger, and chose to violate their duty to assist. Further, individuals present at the scene of a crime will often be terrified and therefore have a legitimate defense that they did not think that they could act without putting themselves or loved ones in danger. | | | There will be times, in the case of accidents in particular, when Good Samaritan laws may cause more harm to a victim in need than good. If citizens with no training in CPR or medical rescue believe that they will be punished for not assisting a victim in imminent need if they can do so without risk of personal harm, they may blindly rush into a situation that they have no preparation for or practice in handling. The victim might very well sue in civil court for the further harm that was recklessly caused by his or her “rescuer”, but the damage will have already been inflicted. |
|
|
SuzanneSciarraSecondPaper 4 - 18 Apr 2010 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Good Samaritan Laws | >
> |
Good Samaritan Laws | | | Driving across the country to visit college friends, two twenty-something grad students were blindsided by a drunk driver. He crossed over four lanes and collided head on with their dark green ‘97 Buick. The young victim driving did not remember very much in the aftermath beyond wondering if she could move her legs, and the faint smell of the airbag pressed up against her. Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to aid if it was possible, or at the very least to pick up the phone and call for assistance, be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance, requiring individuals to aid their fellow man if possible appears moral, ultimately such laws would not serve a greater purpose or effectuate change. | |
<
< | How They Work | >
> | How They Work | | | Within the criminal legal system, Good Samaritan laws require that a person come to the aid of another who is exposed to imminent physical danger, even if there is no special relationship between the victim and the rescuer, if there is no danger of injury to the rescuer. While common in European countries, such as France and Germany, Good Samaritan statutes that carry criminal penalties and create an affirmative duty to act, rather than simply absolve a volunteer of liability for their attempted rescue, have only been enacted in a handful of states in America.
A minority of States has adopted one of three basic models of criminal Good Samaritan laws. States may enact expansive statutes that impose a duty to aid in the face of accident, “Acts of God” and acts of criminal third parties, a more limited statute requiring a bystander only to report a felony in progress and a victim in need of assistance, or the narrowest model requiring only that a bystander report specific types of crimes that they witness or know of, predominately sexual assaults. | |
<
< | In Justification of Good Samaritan Laws | >
> | In Justification of Good Samaritan Laws | | | The criminal law system should, to a large degree, reflect the values of society. In order to have substantive effect, the system should punish what society considers anti-social behavior. In an ideal world, everyone would naturally want to come to the aid of his or her fellow human beings. To do otherwise, whether it is out of selfishness, fear, or hurry, would normally be considered anti-social behavior that detracts from society as a whole. Criminal statutes, such as Good Samaritan laws, would benefit society if they encouraged people to assist others, as well as, from a retributivist perspective, punish what society has deemed morally culpable actions.
Good Samaritan laws may act as a clear community expression that cultivates an expectation of intervention, and a community ethos of responsibility for your fellow man. Further, we are a part of a greater, connection community and the community, in order to function properly, may compel things from individuals that they do not want to do. However, laws that are largely symbolic, that do not actually affect how people behave in society, and which may ultimately cause more harm than good, should not be enacted. | |
<
< | Why they are Just Not Worth It | >
> | Why they are Just Not Worth It | | | People who are inclined to help others, true good Samaritans, will continue to do so regardless of whether there is legislation compelling them to act. “Bad” Samaritans, those who would ignore a victim without offering aid, either out of fear, insensitivity to others, or a connection to the criminal perpetrating the act, will continue to do so regardless of whether their failure to affirmatively act has been legislated to be a minor misdemeanor. | | | America is a country built on the idea of individual freedom and liberty. Good Samaritan laws can therefore be perceived as “forced altruism,” or as unwarranted state intervention into what should be a personal choice. While we do not have a right to act without awareness of the consequences of our actions, do we have a duty to be alert to our fellow man at all times? Or rather, are we free to shut down our alertness and is that freedom compromised by the risk of being help criminally liable if we fail to come to the assistance of someone in need. | |
<
< | Conclusion | >
> | Conclusion | | | To create a duty to assist and implement criminal sanctions against those who fail to uphold this duty, appears facially to be both correct and moral. Assuming that people follow the law as written, one could conclude that it would improve social welfare and remedy the dual problems that good will does not always come from within and that people may not always act in the best interest of society as a whole. Good Samaritan laws in actuality would probably have very little effect on how people acted, if not have a negative effect. While it is true that societies are more than just a collection of individuals, the enactment of broad duties to render aid which carry criminal sentences cannot be justified simply from their ability to act as moral symbols; it must come from their power to affect behavior is some positive way. |
|
|
SuzanneSciarraSecondPaper 3 - 17 Apr 2010 - Main.NonaFarahnik
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | Good Samaritan Laws
Driving across the country to visit college friends, two twenty-something grad students were blindsided by a drunk driver. He crossed over four lanes and collided head on with their dark green ‘97 Buick. The young victim driving did not remember very much in the aftermath beyond wondering if she could move her legs, and the faint smell of the airbag pressed up against her. Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to aid if it was possible, or at the very least to pick up the phone and call for assistance, be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance, requiring individuals to aid their fellow man if possible appears moral, ultimately such laws would not serve a greater purpose or effectuate change. |
|
|
SuzanneSciarraSecondPaper 2 - 17 Apr 2010 - Main.SuzanneSciarra
|
|
<
< | | | | Good Samaritan Laws | |
<
< | Driving across the country to visit college friends, two twenty-something grad students were blindsided by a drunk driver. He crossed over four lanes and collided head on with their dark green ‘97 Buick. The young victim driving did not remember very much in the aftermath beyond wondering if she could move her legs, and the faint smell of the airbag pressed up against her. Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to aid if it was possible, or at the very least to pick up the phone and call for assistance, be declared a criminal offense? | >
> | Driving across the country to visit college friends, two twenty-something grad students were blindsided by a drunk driver. He crossed over four lanes and collided head on with their dark green ‘97 Buick. The young victim driving did not remember very much in the aftermath beyond wondering if she could move her legs, and the faint smell of the airbag pressed up against her. Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to aid if it was possible, or at the very least to pick up the phone and call for assistance, be declared a criminal offense? Although at first glance, requiring individuals to aid their fellow man if possible appears moral, ultimately such laws would not serve a greater purpose or effectuate change. | | | How They Work | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | To create a duty to assist and implement criminal sanctions against those who fail to uphold this duty, appears facially to be both correct and moral. Assuming that people follow the law as written, one could conclude that it would improve social welfare and remedy the dual problems that good will does not always come from within and that people may not always act in the best interest of society as a whole. Good Samaritan laws in actually would properly have very little effect on how people acted, if not have a negative effect. While it is true that societies are more than just a collection of individuals, the enactment of broad duties to render aid which carry criminal sentences cannot be justified simply from their ability to act as moral symbols; it must come from their power to affect behavior is some positive way. | >
> | To create a duty to assist and implement criminal sanctions against those who fail to uphold this duty, appears facially to be both correct and moral. Assuming that people follow the law as written, one could conclude that it would improve social welfare and remedy the dual problems that good will does not always come from within and that people may not always act in the best interest of society as a whole. Good Samaritan laws in actuality would probably have very little effect on how people acted, if not have a negative effect. While it is true that societies are more than just a collection of individuals, the enactment of broad duties to render aid which carry criminal sentences cannot be justified simply from their ability to act as moral symbols; it must come from their power to affect behavior is some positive way. | | | |
|
|
SuzanneSciarraSecondPaper 1 - 17 Apr 2010 - Main.SuzanneSciarra
|
|
>
> |
Good Samaritan Laws
Driving across the country to visit college friends, two twenty-something grad students were blindsided by a drunk driver. He crossed over four lanes and collided head on with their dark green ‘97 Buick. The young victim driving did not remember very much in the aftermath beyond wondering if she could move her legs, and the faint smell of the airbag pressed up against her. Multiple cars stopped, as the highway was now blocked, but no one came to their assistance until the ambulance arrived some time later. While morally questionable, should the failure of the onlookers to be Good Samaritans and attempt to aid if it was possible, or at the very least to pick up the phone and call for assistance, be declared a criminal offense?
How They Work
Within the criminal legal system, Good Samaritan laws require that a person come to the aid of another who is exposed to imminent physical danger, even if there is no special relationship between the victim and the rescuer, if there is no danger of injury to the rescuer. While common in European countries, such as France and Germany, Good Samaritan statutes that carry criminal penalties and create an affirmative duty to act, rather than simply absolve a volunteer of liability for their attempted rescue, have only been enacted in a handful of states in America.
A minority of States has adopted one of three basic models of criminal Good Samaritan laws. States may enact expansive statutes that impose a duty to aid in the face of accident, “Acts of God” and acts of criminal third parties, a more limited statute requiring a bystander only to report a felony in progress and a victim in need of assistance, or the narrowest model requiring only that a bystander report specific types of crimes that they witness or know of, predominately sexual assaults.
In Justification of Good Samaritan Laws
The criminal law system should, to a large degree, reflect the values of society. In order to have substantive effect, the system should punish what society considers anti-social behavior. In an ideal world, everyone would naturally want to come to the aid of his or her fellow human beings. To do otherwise, whether it is out of selfishness, fear, or hurry, would normally be considered anti-social behavior that detracts from society as a whole. Criminal statutes, such as Good Samaritan laws, would benefit society if they encouraged people to assist others, as well as, from a retributivist perspective, punish what society has deemed morally culpable actions.
Good Samaritan laws may act as a clear community expression that cultivates an expectation of intervention, and a community ethos of responsibility for your fellow man. Further, we are a part of a greater, connection community and the community, in order to function properly, may compel things from individuals that they do not want to do. However, laws that are largely symbolic, that do not actually affect how people behave in society, and which may ultimately cause more harm than good, should not be enacted.
Why they are Just Not Worth It
People who are inclined to help others, true good Samaritans, will continue to do so regardless of whether there is legislation compelling them to act. “Bad” Samaritans, those who would ignore a victim without offering aid, either out of fear, insensitivity to others, or a connection to the criminal perpetrating the act, will continue to do so regardless of whether their failure to affirmatively act has been legislated to be a minor misdemeanor.
By criminalizing a failure to call for assistance or provide aid at the time of an accident or crime, the law may also discourage those witnesses who originally chose to stay out of the situation from acting if they reconsider their decision. A fear of criminal sanctions may prevent these potential witnesses from coming forward and providing information to the authorities, as they do not want to implicate themselves in turn. Good Samaritan laws may simultaneously also provide leverage for the police to intimidate people into coming forward with information.
From a purely practical standpoint, it would be difficult for prosecutors to enforce
Good Samaritan laws without incurring high costs, which may explain why they are so rarely enforced in the few states that have enacted them. In many instances a prosecutor would have to find, and then prove, that a bystander who had already left the scene actually witnessed the victim’s plight, recognized the danger, and chose to violate his or her duty to provide aid or call for assistance. Further, most people are going to be terrified in a situation where they witness a crime. They will therefore have a legitimate defense within a state that has Good Samaritan laws that they did not think they could act without putting themselves or loved ones in danger.
There will be times, in the case of accidents in particular, when Good Samaritan laws may cause more harm to a victim in need than good. If citizens with no training in CPR or medical rescue believe that they will be punished for not assisting a victim in imminent need if they can do so without risk of personal harm, they may blindly rush into a situation that they have no preparation for or practice in handling. The victim might very well sue in civil court for the further harm that was recklessly caused by his or her “rescuer”, but the damage will have already been inflicted.
America is a country built on the idea of individual freedom and liberty. Good Samaritan laws can therefore be perceived as “forced altruism,” or as unwarranted state intervention into what should be a personal choice. While we do not have a right to act without awareness of the consequences of our actions, do we have a duty to be alert to our fellow man at all times? Or rather, are we free to shut down our alertness and is that freedom compromised by the risk of being help criminally liable if we fail to come to the assistance of someone in need.
Conclusion
To create a duty to assist and implement criminal sanctions against those who fail to uphold this duty, appears facially to be both correct and moral. Assuming that people follow the law as written, one could conclude that it would improve social welfare and remedy the dual problems that good will does not always come from within and that people may not always act in the best interest of society as a whole. Good Samaritan laws in actually would properly have very little effect on how people acted, if not have a negative effect. While it is true that societies are more than just a collection of individuals, the enactment of broad duties to render aid which carry criminal sentences cannot be justified simply from their ability to act as moral symbols; it must come from their power to affect behavior is some positive way.
-- SuzanneSciarra - 16 Apr 2010 |
|
|