|
Law in Contemporary Society
|
|
Good Samaritan LawsDriving 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 WorkWithin 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. 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 LawsThe 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 ItPeople 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. 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?ConclusionTo 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 2010Good Samaritan LawsDriving 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 WorkGood 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 LawsThe 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 ItThe 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?ConclusionTo 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 |
|
