What do you think of Good-Samaritan laws?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I've been seeing a lot of debate about this on facebook because of a case that recently happened in florida. If you're not aware, the gist of it is two teens basically recorded a man drowning and didn't call anyone to help, or even reported the death afterwards. No charges were brought up since the state doesn't legally require that you report someone who is in danger. They may have fallen into some grey area because they filmed the death, but that's beside the point.

The coverage around this has been pretty relentless, mostly blaming the fact that florida doesn't already have a law in place to prevent something like this. It's frustrated me more than I thought it would because I honestly never gave it much thought. While I certainly agree with the 'principle' of reporting something like this, I don't agree with the spirit of the law around it. In a more personal sense, of course wouldn't want anyone I know to die from a death that could have been prevented, but I'm worried about the potential this has to be implemented for different laws; Let's say I know one of my friends is in possession of weed, do I now face criminal persecution if I don't turn him in? If I see someone do a hit and run, should I have to be the one to call the cops? How about if I'm in a gas station and I see someone steal a candy-bar, I don't give a single shit about the shrink rate of corporate predators like walgreens or CVS so why should the law force me to when I'm not even the one breaking it?

Obviously I consider it a slippery slope and these are some what-if scenerios. But I'm looking at it in terms of legal consistency
and how the government might see it in order to further implement the same standard to other things they've already established as wrong. Essentially the civilians become the cops.

[Lacewing]

I share your conflicted feelings. I don't think there should be a law (because, as you pointed out, it would be too broadly applied). But I do think if someone records a person dying or struggling, and does nothing to get help while they are laughing about it, and if it's clear that it's not a matter of their own life being in danger (such as running into a burning building to help someone), then that person should be held accountable for unquestionable destructive behavior. The idea that it may not be against the law, or that it has to be "proven" through lawyers who play a bunch of games, is absurd. If it's absolutely clear who did it, and that it was a horrendous act against another, just sentence them already... in a way that delivers uniquely appropriate retribution for the behavior/deed.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

if it's absolutely clear who did it, and that it was a horrendous act against another, just sentence them already... in a way that delivers uniquely appropriate retribution for the behavior/deed.

I feel an ounce of guilt in the idea of sentencing them because putting them in prison is not going to help the net-bad committed in the world as it would for real criminals. Usually we imprison people to send a message to other people not to do the same thing, which, since they didn't actually cause the man to drown, that doesn't really work here. Or to prevent that person from future crimes. Filming it was a pretty fucked up thing to do, probably predictive of some mental issues on their part. It will probably be argued that was the crime in itself. But I would personally leave it at they're douchebags but not criminals.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Nice people. Nice country.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Nice people. Nice country.

Nice people no, nice country yes (unlike yours that produces your ilk).

PhilX

[Walker]

If it's absolutely clear who did it, and that it was a horrendous act against another, just sentence them already... in a way that delivers uniquely appropriate retribution for the behavior/deed.

The point is, sentence them under what charge? What's the crime? Stupidity?

Non-action indicates indifference. Life on the line makes it depraved indifference, which is a crime.

The fact that prosecutors are at sixes and sevens in finding a crime indicates that depraved indifference is contingent upon action, not lack of action. However, what’s more indifferent than lack of action?

Calling the bastards teens is a vacuousness on par with calling rioters in Paris, youths.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Nice people. Nice country.

Nice people no, nice country yes (unlike yours that produces your ilk).

PhilX

No doubt you think it's quite normal to taunt and jeer at a drowning person. Sick sick people.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Nice people. Nice country.

Nice people no, nice country yes (unlike yours that produces your ilk).

PhilX

No doubt you think it's quite normal to taunt and jeer at a drowning person. Sick sick people.

Shows you don't know how to read. Sick sick VT.

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Nice people no, nice country yes (unlike yours that produces your ilk).

PhilX

No doubt you think it's quite normal to taunt and jeer at a drowning person. Sick sick people.

Shows you know how to read.

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

No doubt you think it's quite normal to taunt and jeer at a drowning person. Sick sick people.

Shows you don't know how to read. Sick sick VT.

PhilX

[henry quirk]

Should a person be legally obligated to render assistance?

Nope.

It would be nice if folks did assist, but expressions of compassion are -- by defintion -- voluntary. Compelled action is a kind of slavery.

So: shun the teens, if you like, but don't prosecute them.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Should a person be legally obligated to render assistance?

Nope.

It would be nice if folks did assist, but expressions of compassion are -- by defintion -- voluntary. Compelled action is a kind of slavery.

So: shun the teens, if you like, but don't prosecute them.

My mind is made up Henry and you can't change it.

PhilX

[henry quirk]

Yeah, Phil, I was givin' an opinion in the thread, not lookin' to change your mind about anything.

You go about doin' your busy-body work.

Me: I'll keep doin' sumthin' else.

[Lacewing]

if it's absolutely clear who did it, and that it was a horrendous act against another, just sentence them already... in a way that delivers uniquely appropriate retribution for the behavior/deed.

I feel an ounce of guilt in the idea of sentencing them because putting them in prison is not going to help the net-bad committed in the world as it would for real criminals.

I don't think prison is the answer either. That's why I suggest a uniquely appropriate retribution. Like, find out what matters to them, and take that away from them for a good chunk of time -- and make them face and listen to the loved-ones of the person who died -- and make them learn about the person they watched die -- and make them read all of the comments from people who are disgusted with them. I actually think this would be more effective than prison for many crimes!

Oh, and while I'm at it, my punishment for rapists would be to hand them over to a prison gang to deliver the same treatment to them for a period of time.

Some might say our current justice system "works". But does it help us evolve? People who commit crimes don't seem deterred by it. I think sentencing needs to focus on what matters to the person, and make them identify with those they've victimized. A unique punishment would sting more than a generalized one. They can't just disappear into "a crowd" as an invisible nobody -- one of many who mindlessly do the same things -- they must stand out as the individual they are, and be accountable for that.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

If it's absolutely clear who did it, and that it was a horrendous act against another, just sentence them already... in a way that delivers uniquely appropriate retribution for the behavior/deed.

The point is, sentence them under what charge? What's the crime? Stupidity?

Non-action indicates indifference. Life on the line makes it depraved indifference, which is a crime.

The fact that prosecutors are at sixes and sevens in finding a crime indicates that depraved indifference is contingent upon action, not lack of action. However, what’s more indifferent than lack of action?

Calling the bastards teens is a vacuousness on par with calling rioters in Paris, youths.

I think non-action sometimes does indicate depravity in human psychology though. I'm sure they have some sort of mental problems, but I think criminal prosecution should involve depravity + harm caused.