Good Samaritan Laws

[Built To Last]

Those of you that are fans of Seinfeld will know exactly what I'm talking about. In one of the last episodes of the show, Jerry and friends get arrested for laughing at a fat man who is being mugged. The are charged with violating a "Good Samaritan" law, that says if a crime is being committed against someone, you must do all you can to help that person as long as it is safe to do so. Simply put, doing nothing is a crime.

Are these laws right?

Like every person, I'd like to think that if someone is or is about to fall victim to a crime I'd do anything in my power to help them.

However, I've recently come into a whole mess of trouble by, just doing nothing. The only difference is that, this trouble occured "behind closed doors" so to speak. There was no one there to judge me for my inaction, who wasn't already in on the crime. I ultimately refused to participate, but because I knew of it and failed to prevent it, I am considered just as guilty of the crime.

So what do you Zokeans think about "Good Samartian Laws"? Is the getaway driver for the bank robbery just as guilty as the actual bank robbers? Does it make a difference if the crim is committed "behind closed doors"?

[Dream of the iris]

It depends on how you define the accomplice. If the Accomplice physically or in some shape or form helped the criminal WILLINGLY such as the getaway driver at a bank robbery then, yes he or she should be accountable. However, there are certain situations in the real world where people are deemed accomplices because they did nothing, rather than actually assist the perpetrator.

This is where the "Good Samaritan" law becomes subjective. Example: I just came back to my hometown after years of being away and I met up with my old best friend to have a few drinks and have fun for that night. Because I've been away I didn't know at the time my friend turned into a bad guy. So as we're driving to pick up the beer he tells me "I need to make a stop at some dudes house to pick up some money". You guys go to some dudes house and your friend tells you to follow him. You go into the house meet this guy and next thing you know your friend demands the money this dude owes him with a gun. Things go south fast and next thing you know your friend accidentally shot this dude and killed him. Your friend didn't mean to because some loud noise startled him or something and now he's crying and saying he's going to prison and blah blah blah. Now your faced with this decision. Should you rat your best friend out whose been with you through thick and thin and who you have a deep love for, simply to avoid being deemed an accomplice? Or should you just walk away from it, not get involved and never call him again?

You had no idea you were walking in that situation and you were scared to do anything because your friend had a gun and you feared for your own life. I have no doubt in my mind that most people caught in that situation would do the same and freeze instead of being a big time hero and some how grab the gun from him and call the police. Also most people would opt to not even involve themselves further and simply leave rather than help your friend bury the body....

In spite of all of these circumstance, however, because of this law you are now deemed an accomplice and are subject to heavy penalties. The problem with this law is that it could fly both ways. Sure with the Seinfield incident they were just being douchebags and they probably should have done something like yell for the police....however, there are many cases that are like the example I just painted and by technicality he would be labaled the same as Jerry was at Court.

I think this law is a good idea if administered properly. If there is enough evidence to suggest that you did nothing to help the criminal willingly, and that you had no desire to even be in that situation in the first place, then you should not be held accountable. Oh and if your life is not threatened in the least bit too. But unspoken threats should count such as your friend having a gun. Its true that he may not have it pointed at you and that you guys are best friends so he probably won't intentionally shoot you but the fact that he has a gun and is in a situation where if you try to intervene you could potentially get shot, should be enough to count as life threatening.

Same goes with being in a large group where the majority wish to commit the crime. If you happen to be in the same room but you don't want to be there, but your surrounded by people who think you are on their side and who are dangerous, leaving the room or speaking up (though heroic and brave) may cause harm to yourself. It really just depends on the case. If your dealing with a kid your with whose stealing something dumb like a candy bar and he's obviously not life threatening then you should be held accountable.

[BiggLJ]

Just to clear things up, Good Samaritan Laws are actually usually about protecting the good samaritan from legal action. For example, if you pull someone out of a burning car and in the process accidentally break their leg, a Good Samaritan Law would protect you from getting sued.

Now, in a lot of Europe and a few of the States there are laws more like the one seen on Seinfeld. Personally I don't like them. If you're just a citizen it's not your duty to help people when they're in trouble. It should be a person's choice whether they want to help or not.

A getaway driver would and should be charged as an accomplice, so they'd get the same punishment as the bank robbers. They're obviously working with the robbers.

[Cliche Guevara]

^cool, i learned from you today.

[Carbonbased]

Now, in a lot of Europe and a few of the States there are laws more like the one seen on Seinfeld. Personally I don't like them. If you're just a citizen it's not your duty to help people when they're in trouble. It should be a person's choice whether they want to help or not.

I disagree, in a world where we can't really trust the state to look out for us, we more than ever need to be looking out for one another. And I think that people should be able to be prosecuted if they are in a position to render aid with out endangering them selves yet they do not.

As an example, someone who works on street level say in a bakery at closing witnesses an elderly person slip and fall hard on the ice outside, they do not get up. In stead of going out to check on the person which would not put the samaritan in any great risk they ignore the issue and close up and go home. The old guy dies... The baker should be held with something, not prison time but perhaps a fine should be assessed.

With the way people are disconnected today it might help to have that little extra shove to get them into action when it could really help someone is my point I guess.

[Struwwelpeter]

Negligence to help someone in need should be charged as manslaughter. Nobility is a concept only whites can understand, it's sickening that some whites have been judaified in to accepting the values of a common nigger.

[Iehovah]

BiggLJ pretty much hit the nail on the head. Samaritan laws in particular are used as a form of protection, not a demand of aid. There are a few states, such as Flordia, that make it law that you must help someone, but from the relevant material, I gather that this law (also called Good Samaritan law) is typically ignored by the law and goes unprosecuted. Most places consider it a matter of course that no person should be EXPECTED to put their lives in danger for another person.

What you're thinking of is referred to as "duty to rescue" law. There are certain people and circumstances that do require you to rescue someone. People who have it as their job, for instance, or parents and children. A more detail explanation here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

I myself think that the law covers things about as well as they can, though they certainly could use some tweaking on those Samaritan laws. As for throwbacks like JFLC, they might have a point about nobility if they were willing to give up their lives for the 'niggers' they hate so much.

[Ambient]

In New Zealand under the Crimes Act if a police officer implores you to help him with an arrest ( probably via Citizens Arrest) you are obliged to do so, not to do so i would say would be a "good Samaritan" crime because you are not meeting obligation.

[Dream of the iris]

Hah if anything white people lost their sense of nobility. If anything, it's the Asians who fully heartedly understand the idea of nobility.