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