Good Samaritan Laws:
Do we have an ethical and legal obligation to be our brother’s keeper?
Christine Morris
University of Maine, Machias
When 7 year old Sherrice Iverson was raped and murdered in a Las Vegas casino bathroom in 1997 there was significant public outrage in regards to the heinous crime. However, it was not entirely towards the offender. Instead it was in regard to the negligent bystander who witnessed the assault but did nothing to intervene. The nationally publicized story has sparked a great deal of debate. Do we have a moral as well as a legal obligation to help victims of crimes? Most people would agree that we do have a moral obligation; although, whether or not we have a legal obligation has been a heated debate among lawmakers. While supporters of proposed “Good Samaritan” legislation show significant need for this law there are many who argue that we should not be legally required to be our brother’s keeper. By examining the issue through the eyes of the philosophical theories of ethical egoism, altruism, utilitarianism, Aristotle’s virtue theory of the Golden Mean, and Kant’s deontology perhaps an answer can be obtained as to what our ethical and legal obligations are.
Proponents of Good Samaritan Laws, also referred to as Duty to Assist laws, argue that the law will create a better society of higher standards and expectations of its members. However, at this time these laws are few in the United States. Currently, only Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Vermont have a law requiring bystanders to assist others in need (Karp, 1998). Wisconsin’s law was put into effect in 1983. This law, which when violated is a “Class C” misdemeanor, states that “ any person who knows that a crime is being committed and that a victim is exposed to bodily harm shall summon law enforcement officers or other assistance or shall provide assistance to the victim”. The penalty for violating this law can be as severe as thirty days in jail and a five hundred-dollar fine (Knapcik, 1998). Good Samaritan Laws, similar to Wisconsin’s, have been in effect in European civil law for sometime. Quebec also enacted a Good Samaritan Law in 1975 in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (Schwartz, 1998). However, the locations that have such laws all state that there is seldom cause to enforce them. Wisconsin’s Good Samaritan Law has only been enforced once. In 1992, Karie LaPlante and Sheldon Brooks were convicted under the Good Samaritan Law for not reporting the beating of a fifteen year old girl. The couple received probation, a three hundred dollar fine, and community service (Knapcik, 1998). Conversely, in the United States there have been far too many cases where bystanders did nothing. In the 1964 stabbing death of Kitty Genovese in New York, thirty-eight of her neighbors stood by and watched the attack. When she screamed repeatedly for help her attacker fled only to return two more times to continue the attack because nobody responded to her. Out of the thirty-eight bystanders no one even called for help (Blumner, 1998). A similar instance occurred in Massachusetts in 1983, a woman was brutally raped in a tavern for over an hour while the tavern’s patrons watched. Not one patron intervened or even called for help (Schwartz, 1998). Although it is the gruesome case of the 1997 molestation and murder of seven year old Sherrice Iverson, in the bathroom of a Las Vegas casino, that has put the need for Good Samaritan Laws into today’s headlines. Nineteen year old David Cash, Jr. witnessed the assault on Sherrice by his best friend Jeremy Strohmeyer as he looked over the top of the bathroom stall. Cash left the bathroom and Strohmeyere exited twenty-four minutes later (as timed by the casino’s surveillance cameras) to tell Cash that he had molested and strangled the girl to death. Cash’s only reply was to ask if Sherrice had become sexually excited. Today David Cash continues his education at the University of California at Berkeley because he broke no law (People, 1998). He is even enjoying his newfound notoriety as he told one interviewer “ that it has even helped him score with women” (Knapcik, 1998). Occurrences like Kitty’s and Sherrice’s could have ended differently if such a law existed and the bystanders had taken action.
Supporters
for the law believe that when bystanders make the decision to not assist they
are engaging in a criminal act by creating a potentially more threatening
situation for the victim. As members of
a society we have an obligation to assist others in need. We have this duty because as bystanders and
witnesses what we decide has a significant impact on the well being of
others. The decision to assist can be a
life or death one for the victim. For
example, when the paparazzi in France decided to continue photographing the
Princess and the accident site instead of calling for help they were
instrumental and responsible for making the outcome of the accident fatal
(Ponce, 1999). In another occurrence in
Tampa, Florida, seventeen-year-old Nicholas Condero was beaten to death with a
baseball bat while seven of his friends watched the attack. After the beating, the witnesses ran from the
scene leaving Nicholas behind and did not speak of the incident for over an
hour. Nicholas’ mother can not help but
wonder if her son would still be alive today if just one of the seven witnesses
had called the police or paramedics for help (Karp, 1998). In cases like these the bystanders do not
appear to be innocent. They made a
decision that assisted in turning tragedies into fatalities. In the case of the death of Princess Diana,
the members of the paparazzi are being charged with violating France’s Good
Samaritan Law (Ponce, 1999). The mothers
of Nicholas Condero and Sherrice Iverson are now lobbying to put such a law
into the books here in the United States.
The two women are not alone in their fight. Florida State legislators Deborah Tamamrigo
and Victor Christ drafted a bill that would make it illegal to witness a crime
and to not get assistance and to not report it. Nevada Assembly Majority Leader
Richard Perkins introduced a similar “good Samaritan” bill, Bill 267 in
response to the Iverson murder (Vogel, 1999).
The case has also prompted federal legislation. Texas congressman Nick Lampson introduced the
Sherrice Iverson Act. The federal bill would require states to enact criminal
penalties against witnesses who do not report sexual crimes against
children. Similar laws are being
proposed in California, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, and Texas. The penalties for violating these laws range
from sixty days in jail to five years in prison (Karp, 1998). However at this
time few of these laws have been passed.
This
is largely do to the debate proposed by opponents of the law that enacting such
a law would be legislating morality (Lyons, 1999). Many opponents argue that we are responsible
for only ourselves. It is believed that
our nation is founded on the philosophy of individual rights and we should not
be burdened with a duty to assist others. Sheldon Richman, vice president of
policy affairs for The Future of Freedom Foundation contends that “the American
philosophy of jurisprudence does not permit the government to impose positive
obligations on citizens. America was founded on a bedrock of inalienable
individual rights. Under that theory, each person is the owner of his life. As
such, he has no positive legal obligations to others that are enforceable by
government except those that are voluntarily accepted. All that government can
require of you is that you abstain from violating the rights of others by
subjecting them to force or fraud. Thus, even if you believe that morality
requires you to help an accident victim, that requirement is not enforceable by
government. A theory of individual rights could have no other outcome” (1997).
Therefore any such law could be deemed unconstitutional. For many Americans
there is a fear to get involved. Many
are afraid to put themselves or family members in harms way. Others are afraid of any legal repercussion should
they get involved. Although almost every
state has made an effort to address such fears by granting legal protection for
any good Samaritans against criminal or civil liability (Lyons, 1999). These types of protective measures are
helping many state legislators reach a compromise. The arguments against a duty
to assist fall under the philosophical theory of ethical egoism.
The theory of ethical egoism proposes that we look after our own interests and ourselves. Such a theory taken at face value would oppose legislation requiring us to be our brother’s keeper. By taking action and assisting someone in trouble we could be putting ourselves in danger which would contradict our self-interest. From the perspective of legislation, ethical egoism supports our nation’s philosophy of individual freedom and rights and therefore implementing such a law would violate that philosophy. Although our beliefs in individual freedoms and rights are not the sole beliefs that this country is founded on which shall be illustrated in the utilitarian perspective. However if we examine the theory on another level, rational ethical egoism, such a claim would be contradicted. While it may be in our immediate self-interest to not get involved the larger picture may argue otherwise. If getting involved would create a safer and more prosperous environment for everyone than the long term effects would be greater for us by stepping in than by standing by. Consider the story proposed by philosopher Peter Singer regarding two hunters cornered by a saber tooth cat. If the hunters follow the traditional approach of ethical relativism and attempt to flee to protect their own interests it is highly likely that either one of them will lose to the cat (Rosenstand, 2003). However if they follow the rational ethical egoism approach and work together to fight the cat their individual chances of survival greatly increase. Singer proposed this option as a version of altruism, which in this sense closely resembles rational ethical egoism.
However the
theory of altruism differs from rational ethical egoism in intent. While the
egoist would cooperate to protect their own interests the altruist believes
that the interests of another are greater than your own. Altruism argues that
everyone should give up their own self-interest for the interests of others.
Some argue that this altruistic approach is part of our biological make-up. By
nature man is a cooperative species. Scientists have concluded that
biologically we are predestined to form cooperative units with one another
(Angier, 2003). It benefits our survival to depend on the members of our group
or community in times of duress, as illustrated in the above situation of the
cooperation of the two hunters. This is why many people who risk their own safety
for another’s often explain their actions as a reflex response that they were
just compelled to assist their fellow person (Rosenstand, 2003). Altruism
supports the Golden Rule of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you”. This approach creates an environment of cooperation and safety where
everyone benefits. While altruism provides answers to the ethical and moral
dilemma of assisting another in trouble it does not provide a solution to the
legal dilemma. This is because altruism is a theory of intentions, which can
not be legislated. For that we turn to the theory of utilitarianism.
Through the theory of utilitarianism a moral and legal solution can be found. The utilitarian perspective advocates taking the course of action that would benefit the majority. This theory examines the consequences of actions. Therefore it would support Good Samaritan acts and legislation since the theory strives to bring maximum happiness to maximum numbers. Our country utilizes this approach in many ways such as our voting practices and many of our policies. The theory of utilitarianism determines which actions bring the most happiness through a simple mathematical equation. By assigning a numerical value to the pros and the cons of an issue and tallying them both the side that is left with the greatest value wins. In the case of the two hunters the decision to aid each other results in the highest score. Legally legislation that promotes a safer environment benefits the majority of society. This is exemplified in traffic laws, which limits the freedom of the individual to protect the community. In this sense the utilitarian theory coincides with implementing duty to assist laws because the pros out weigh the cons for the majority. However in situations of grave danger the position would shift. If the situation would cause more damage than good the result would be that not acting would benefit the majority. This is a flaw with the utilitarian theory and its math. The conclusion is based on the score of arbitrarily assigned values that can shift depending on who, what, where, and when they are assigned. A median approach can be found in Aristotle’s philosophy of the Golden Mean, which addresses such extremes of the Good Samaritan spectrum.
Aristotle’s
concept of virtue states that one is virtuous when they are acting according to
one’s nature. His virtue theory revolves around the concept of the Golden Mean.
Simply stated the theory calls for the action that responds to a particular
situation at the right time, in the right way, right amount, and for the right
reason (Rosenstand, 2003). This theory promotes the action of the middle
ground, the action that is found in the middle of the two extremes. In the case
of acting as the Good Samaritan this approach would not favor coming to the aid
of another in every situation. The theory recommends finding the balance
between not acting in any manner and jumping in feet first without any
consideration for consequences or for thought. Of the theoretical perspectives
studied this approach would appeal to most for it allows for the most
individual control and compromise. The theory of the Golden Mean would find
compromise between total non-action and action that could result in danger to
one’s self and the other they are trying to assist. In the legal setting this
approach could create a compromise. For example if it would be too dangerous to
personally intervene the median may be to find a phone and call for help. This
is a compromise between non-action and reckless action. In many states such a
compromise has been achieved. In response to the Iverson murder, Nevada
legislators proposed Bill 267 in 1997.
The initial bill required good Samaritans to report any reasonable
suspicions that a child younger than 18 is being sexually abused or violently
treated. Since the initial proposal Nevada legislators have been able to
redraft the bill to come to a compromise that would meet the majority’s
approval. State Gov. Kenny Guinn signed
bill 267 in September 1999. The final
version of the Bill requires “most people over 18, including parents, to report
to police within 24 hours when they have a reasonable suspicion that a child
under 12 is being physically or sexually abused. They would be immune from liability if they
reported in good faith that a child was abused but their allegations proved
groundless. A person who fails to report
a crime against children could be charged with a misdemeanor and sentenced to
six months in jail and required to pay a $1,000 fine” (Vogel, 1999). This legislation
is a compromise that assists the victim while protecting the good intentions of
the Samaritan. However the intentions, according to Kant, are all that truly
count.
Kant’s
philosophical perspective, known as deontology, is the theory of moral obligation.
The theory of deontology examines the intentions of actions. As long as one
acts with good intentions than the resulting consequence is irrelevant.
Therefore this philosophy would support the actions of a Good Samaritan. Kant
recognizes that for many what to do in a tough situation will cause some inner
strife and proposes a simple solution. If you are in a position faced with the
debate over what you want to do and what you ought to do simply employ the test
of the categorical imperative. Essentially the categorical imperative states
that you choose the action that you would employ as a universal law. This is
the action you would choose for every individual in that situation. This
appears to be an easy decision to make; of course if someone is in danger or
needs help you would assist and want everyone else to do the same. However the
problem with this is that circumstances are always attached to every situation
and no one’s situation is ever identical. Each person possesses his or her own
issues and concerns. For example, two women witness a girl being assaulted by a
man much larger than them. One of the women is young and single and the other
is a single mother of a young child. The personal situations of the two women
cause two different sets of circumstances. While the single woman may jump in
and try to help the girl, the single mother has a valid cause to hesitate. She
has a young child of her own to worry about. If she takes action that results
in her demise her child is left without a mother. When factors such are these
are taken into consideration it is difficult to impose a universal law. Kant’s
deontology has good intentions but to Kant’s dismay the consequences must be
considered.
Each philosophical perspective supports the actions of the Good Samaritan in one form or another from an ethical perspective but not necessarily from a legal one. However in Aristotle’s theory of the Golden Mean an ethical and legal compromise can be found. At first glance coming to the aid of another appears to be the moral decision however that is only in a vacuum situation. It is difficult to create a theory and policies on such an issue containing a myriad of “what if?” scenarios. A median answer seems to be the most effective solution as illustrated in the Nevada law. A society is only as effective as its members are and to function without any regards to one another would quickly bring the downfall of our community and culture. However every good action and intention has consequences that must be considered, both the short term and the long term. Some argue that morality and law are exclusive and maintain that any such law violates individual freedom. However laws against murder, assault, harassment, gambling, and prostitution all combine morality and law. It is possible to create a balance that protects both victims and individuals.
The degree to which we are our brother’s keepers will always be continuously analyzed and criticized. Opinions will always vary on what our responsibility is to our society and each other. The philosophical theories of ethical egoism, altruism, utilitarianism, golden mean, and deontology combine to provide explanations and recommendations for solving such moral dilemmas. While Good Samaritan Laws will never be the answer to creating a humane and kind society they can be a tool for the legal system to remind us that what we decide to do in a situation can have serious and even fatal consequences for those who are involved. For our society, the law would improve the standards of morality that we decide are acceptable. Through such laws our culture can be influenced and change can occur. However, will we as a society ever decide that the rewards are worth the responsibility? Do we believe that we are living in a society that needs to have its morality regulated until we can reach that standard? Finally, if we as a majority do not feel that such a law is warranted than are we satisfied with the current standards of morality? As long as there are victims such as Sherrice changes to our laws and our culture must occur.
Angier, N. (2003). Is War Our Biological Destiny? The New York Times. Retrieved June
25, 2004 from Blackboard Learning Systems: http://www.courses.maine.edu/?bbatt=Y
Blumner,R.
(1998, May 24). Doing Nothing’ Shouldn’t Be Illegal. St. Petersburg Times.
Retrieved April 21, 1999 from Northern Lights.
Karp, D.
(1998, Sept. 26). Bill Compels Witness to Report Crimes. St.
Petersburg Times. Retrieved April 17, 1999 from Northern Lights.
Knapcik,
K.M. (1998, Sept. 9). Unlike in Nevada, Witnesses Here Face Law. Wisconsonites Have Legal Duty to Help Crime
Victims; Casino Killer’s Friend Didn’t. Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel. Retrieved April 21, 1999 from Northern Lights.
Lyons, D.
(1999, March). Help Your Neighbor- it’s the Law (Duty to assist Law). State Legislatures. Retrieved April 17,
1999 from Northern Lights.
Ponce, P. (1999). Laying Down the
Law. MacNeil Newshour Online.
Retrieved June 22,
2004 from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec97/french_9-3.html.
Richman, S. (1997, Sept.) Good
Samaritan laws are a bad idea. The Future
of Freedom
Foundation. Retrieved June 22, 2004 from http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0997d.asp.
Rosenstand, N. (2003). The Moral of the Story (4th
ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Schwartz,
S. (1998). The Risk of Rescue – The Plight of the Good Samaritan. Emergency
Planning Digest. Retrieved April 17, 1999 from http://www.island.com/sarbc/goodSam.html
Scot Free.
(1998, Sept.). People. Retrieved
April 21, 1999 from People Online.
Vogel, E.
(1999, March 18). Good Samaritan measure attacked. Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved June 22, 2004 from http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1999/Mar-18-Thu-1999/news/10816723.html.