A Duty to Act, or Not?

[XLFD]

The very last episode of the television show Seinfeld, had an interesting sequence in it that happened when they were in a small town in Massachusetts.

The law, which is actually more a "duty to act" law than a "Good Samaritan" law, is real and applies in Massachusetts and at least eight others states as of 2009.   U.S. common law dictates that there is no general duty to act in an emergency, however, in states including Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont, you can be charged with a misdemeanor for not responding to someone in danger.

In these states, citizens are never required to place themselves in peril. This allows for so much subjectivity that the laws are generally ignored by law makers and citizens.  Texas, on the other hand, has a statute stating that no citizen has a duty to assist another against their voluntary will.  Michigan legislators will be considering whether to become a "duty to act/Good Samaritan" state with legislation that was introduced in October. 

As noted in the Oct. 14, 2017 Detroit Freep article:

LANSING — A state lawmaker wants to answer the question: When does a person have a moral responsibility to help someone in need?

State Rep. Sam Singh, D-East Lansing, said he thinks the answer may lie in incidents such as the hazing death of a fraternity pledge at Penn State University in February. After seeing video of the February incident in which an obviously intoxicated 19-year-old fell down a flight of stairs at the fraternity house and was left without any medical help for 12 hours, he felt he had to at least start a conversation in Michigan.

After being approached by a constituent whose son died in an accident in which he didn’t get any help from friends, Singh introduced a bill last week that would require people to provide assistance to someone in grave physical danger or risk being charged with a misdemeanor that carries a penalty of 90 days in jail and a $500 fine.

“It may be difficult to find the right language, but there should be some level of duty for people to call in law enforcement if they see someone in distress,” he said. “There is a responsibility that if you see someone who needs attention and you decide to not do anything, and that person dies, shouldn’t there be a consequence to you?”

Is this a good idea?  It's author obviously thinks so, and the Detroit Free Press didn't offer any potential negative aspects of such a law.  As a former firefighter myself, it seems natural that I might think this is a great idea.  But is it?  Here's the body of the proposed bill:

Currently, as noted, the law does not penalize you for not helping somebody who is in a dangerous situation (provided you weren't the cause of it), even when it wouldn't be an inconvenience to you.  While most of us couldn't sit, stand or drive idly by someone in dire trouble, and most of us would have a hard time excusing those who would do so, there are some good reasons why there isn't such law in federal statutes, and why it might be the best case to leave it that way in Michigan.

If you love reading legal scholarship work, Marin Scordato published Understanding the Absence of a Duty To Reasonably Rescue in America..., where he does his best to rationalize the absence of such law as a good thing.  Here are some of Scordato's points.

Most people immediately act to help others in peril, so criminalizing the failure to rescue would have little impact on what is already a strong social expectation.  Those reluctant to rescue in the first place will still be unmotivated to act even with the threat of prosecution. 

The only time fear of this threat might manifest itself into helping is when there are already numerous people around to help, and notice those who did not.  Of course, it is unlikely the help is needed then.  Identifying those accused of this crime becomes difficult, when it cannot be fully determined whether the person who walked or drove by didn't later try to call for the help they didn't feel comfortable in giving.

Moreover, there is always the risk that a rescue effort by the wrong person may do more harm than good. A law making it a duty to rescue would aggravate this risk by requiring even ill-equipped or untrained individuals to involve themselves in medically complicated or otherwise stressful scenarios they may not be psychologically equipped to deal with.  Their presence doing the bare minimum to avoid legal liability may discourage other, more altruistic or skilled rescuers from helping.  The result may then be that the victim is worse off than if the reluctant rescuer had passed on by, leaving the altruistic one to help. 

Though many states and countries have decided that their citizens need to be forced under the penalty of prosecution to act as a good Samaritan when the time comes, I would suggest that it is better left alone; however, we should all endeavor to be good Samaritans when the opportunity presents itself out of a higher duty than law.

What do you think? 

[shinblind]

What next?

Mandate bravery? 

Mandate common sense? 

That would certainly end the gig for most of out city government.

[XLFD]

According to Chief Barnett at the last city council meeting, I lack any type of common sense in doing whatever he said I did, so I certainly hope they never mandate that.

[XLFD]

Let's just say he's never appreciated my math skills in the past in that regard.  

[Willy]

As far as that college student is concerned, my guess is that nobody thought he was truly hurt, they probably thought he was just drunk. Something that is not unusual at college parties. The intended bill has got to be one of the most poorly written pieces of legislation I have read. Forcing people to involve themselves into situations that could lead to legal trouble for those that help makes no sense. Most people will help someone in need but if it puts their life in danger that's another story. Also, in the process of helping others, unless someone is trained medically or in rescue situations it's not a bright idea to force people to act just because they happen to be passing by. Most people have cell phones so safety responders are only a call away. This a typical knee jerk reaction by another leftist who has the same mindset which is  that the taxpayer should be forced to help anyone they feel needs help such as all the illegals that are costing  the taxpayers billions of dollars. 

[XLFD]

As you might expect of the politically motivated, Representative Sam Singh adapts the frat story to suit his purpose, you can read the full story here, where frat security cameras caught much of what happened that night.  Although a tragedy, the recordings illustrate to me that this is a shaky foundation to base his bill on, awkward language and all.  The pledge drank on his own volition, he fell down the stairs on his own, he wasn't neglected by other members, and medical help was eventually summoned when they determined he was in worse shape than someone who has imbibed too much.  He wound up dying at the hospital after surgery.  This is a large part of why a judge dismissed the original case of the prosecution.