Should witnesses to a crime have an obligation to ACT?

[Neesika]

link

A 15-year-old girl who went to her homecoming dance was repeatedly gang raped and beaten at Richmond High School for at least two hours while more than a dozen witnesses saw the assault but failed to call police, authorities said today.

The attack occurred Saturday around 9:30 p.m. after the girl had left the dance and was waiting for a ride from her father. She saw a male student she knew, who took her to dark alley behind one of the school buildings, Richmond police said.

Police said alcohol was consumed but were awaiting toxicology tests.

The male student and about six others began raping and beating the girl. As she struggled, more than a dozen witnesses passed by or watched what was going on. The ordeal lasted 2 to 2 1/2 hours, police said.

"The victim was beaten, sexually assaulted and robbed," said Lt. Mark Gagan. "What's equally disturbing is that other people saw what was going on and did nothing."

Police were finally called after a female student overhead people talking about the rape. She called 911 and told dispatchers what she had heard, according to Gagan.

The girl was hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries, police said.

A former student, Manuel Ortega, 19, was arrested a few blocks away Saturday night and booked on charges of rape, robbery and kidnapping, Gagan said. Ortega was being held Monday on $800,000 bail.

Investigators were questioning two students Monday evening at the police station in Richmond, a city of 104,000 16 miles northeast of San Francisco.

In the common law, there is no positive obligation for a passerby to intercede when someone else is in danger. An oft-cited, very extreme hypothetical example of that is that you do not have to save a child who is drowning in a puddle. In fact, if you DO intercede, you can open yourself up to civil liability in some cases (ie improperly applying First Aid). It's hardly the case, however, that regular people are so scared of litigation that they always refuse to help you when you're in need. Still, intervening can sometimes be dangerous, and I think a lot of people simply don't know how to react to certain situations.

But then you get a really egregious example like that above, and my gut instinct is that there should be criminal liability for those who failed to do even the bare minimum to prevent the ongoing commission of the assault (ie. at least call the cops). I want to discuss the pros and cons of this, and also try to figure out how criminalising such a failure to act (or creating a civil liability) would even work. Thoughts?

[Kurona]

In fact, if you DO intercede, you can open yourself up to civil liability in some cases (ie improperly applying First Aid).

I thought the Good Samaritan Law protected people from litigation but I suppose it may be different in different jurisdictions.

[Free-Beings]

While I find the acts of the male teenagers so disgusting if looks could kill they'd be dead, a quote comes to mind.
IIRC it goes "The only thing more evil than evil is to allow evil to flourish."
And that is exactly what those witnesses did.




edit for spelling

[Neesika]

In fact, if you DO intercede, you can open yourself up to civil liability in some cases (ie improperly applying First Aid).

I thought the Good Samaritan Law protected people from litigation but I suppose it may be different in different jurisdictions.

It depends. If you're an average person, there is usually some legal 'shield' if you lend aid. However if you are a specialist...say a doctor...who lends aid to a victim of an accident and for whatever reason harm that person, you can be held liable. It's a different standard and depends on your training and experience...more training and experience, a higher level of expectation for proper care. You are generally protected as long as you cause no harm intentionally or through gross fault. But you aren't obligated to help.

In Canada, the ONLY jurisdiction imposing a positive obligation to render aid without serious risk to yourself is Quebec (unsurprisingly). There is a provision in the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section 2). There is little case law to define what the 'prudent person' standard in this case is, however...as in what really you MUST do to aid someone in peril.

[RoI3]

"There should be criminal penalties for failing to do at least the minimum to help a victim of crime during the commission of that crime. ie. not calling the cops."

[Poliwanacraca]

While I am absolutely disgusted with the inaction of the passers-by and hope that they feel horribly guilty about it for the rest of their lives, I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of making inaction a crime. So, my (clearly extremely helpful) answer is: I'm not sure.

[Neesika]

"There should be criminal penalties for failing to do at least the minimum to help a victim of crime during the commission of that crime. ie. not calling the cops."

Plagarism! You are directly quoting me from UMP and not attributing that quote to me! Poopyhead!

[Vetalia]

I think if you see something illegal going on and you don't at least report it you should have some kind of liability, with a provision of course for situations where you'd be placing yourself in inordinate danger if you did so. That assumes they can prove you're there in the first place, which is the tough part.

[RoI3]

"There should be criminal penalties for failing to do at least the minimum to help a victim of crime during the commission of that crime. ie. not calling the cops."

Plagarism! You are directly quoting me from UMP and not attributing that quote to me! Poopyhead!

My bad. Atleast I put quotation marks in.

[Neesika]

While I am absolutely disgusted with the inaction of the passers-by and hope that they feel horribly guilty about it for the rest of their lives, I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of making inaction a crime. So, my (clearly extremely helpful) answer is: I'm not sure.

I'm at the same level of discomfort. Say there is a single witness...she comes from a country where you DO NOT EVER call law enforcement, because law enforcement is inherently corrupt, and violent. I can see not calling the cops then. I can think of a bunch of scenarios why someone legitimately wouldn't contact the authorities...but damn. That many witnesses and no one did a damn thing?

If there were to actually STAND there and watch, I'm fairly sure there could be some application of criminal liability...but even on that point I have to admit I'm not sure. I'd have to do some research...and I need to run to another class. It'd be awfully nice if someone would do my work for me and find a source of criminal liability there

[Neesika]

I think if you see something illegal going on and you don't at least report it you should have some kind of liability, with a provision of course for situations where you'd be placing yourself in inordinate danger if you did so. That assumes they can prove you're there in the first place, which is the tough part.

That is indeed a problem...I doubt many police forces would bother expending the energy tracking down innactive witnesses. Shaming them though...say they were caught on camera...yeah. I might be okay with that, perhaps putting the video up on the news.

[Poliwanacraca]

It'd be awfully nice if someone would do my work for me and find a source of criminal liability there

*casts Summon Neo Art*

[Neesika]

It'd be awfully nice if someone would do my work for me and find a source of criminal liability there

*casts Summon Neo Art*

Yeah totally...I bitch about him getting more legal recognition here but then I totally expect him to do my work for me

I blame my ovaries for making me a contradictory creature

[Northwest Slobovia]

While I am absolutely disgusted with the inaction of the passers-by and hope that they feel horribly guilty about it for the rest of their lives, I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of making inaction a crime. So, my (clearly extremely helpful) answer is: I'm not sure.

What makes you uncomfortable about it? It's not like we're asking people to wade into a melee with fists/knives/guns flying, but just calling the cops to report a felony in progress.

Would it matter to you if the penalty was a misdemeanor, which usually means nothing more than a fine or a few days in jail?

[Douchebaggerry]

I think allowing something like this to happen in front of you and doing nothing to stop it is despicable, and should be punishable.

[Dempublicents1]

I think allowing something like this to happen in front of you and doing nothing to stop it is despicable, and should be punishable.

I think most people have the feeling that it should be punishable. The questions are what form that punishment would take and under what circumstances you could reasonably be obligated to act and in what circumstances you couldn't. And I'm honestly not sure what the answers to those questions would be. I don't think you can be obligated to help someone when doing so would present a clear and present danger to yourself. For example, while I am horrified that no one attempted to stop the ongoing action, I can't say that someone should have been obligated to get physically involved. With multiple participants and jeering crowd of onlookers, such action could have put them in bodily danger as well. Calling the police/alerting school authorities on the other hand, is something that any of them could have done - and they could have done so out of sight of the rest of the crowd. In my gut, I think they should be punished for failure to do so. But then, if we make it a crime for someone to fail to alert authorities when another crime is ongoing, does that mean you could get sent to jail for smelling marijuana at a concert and not going looking for the nearest cop? The answers to these questions are never as easy as they seem at first, and it's something that would have to be approached with care.

[The Atlas Society]

I can't blame witnesses for not jumping in and fighting off these criminals. I'd like to think that I would (if they were unarmed, anyway), but I've never been in that scenario. The problem is that these people watched and didn't even call the cops. That's when these people need to be held liable. While they don't need to take up jail space or be charged with accessory there needs to be some sort of fine based on the crime they watched.

[Greed and Death]

I would say in that case they would have an obligation to call the police at the very least, and that is where they failed.

[Glorious Freedonia]

link

A 15-year-old girl who went to her homecoming dance was repeatedly gang raped and beaten at Richmond High School for at least two hours while more than a dozen witnesses saw the assault but failed to call police, authorities said today.

The attack occurred Saturday around 9:30 p.m. after the girl had left the dance and was waiting for a ride from her father. She saw a male student she knew, who took her to dark alley behind one of the school buildings, Richmond police said.

Police said alcohol was consumed but were awaiting toxicology tests.

The male student and about six others began raping and beating the girl. As she struggled, more than a dozen witnesses passed by or watched what was going on. The ordeal lasted 2 to 2 1/2 hours, police said.

"The victim was beaten, sexually assaulted and robbed," said Lt. Mark Gagan. "What's equally disturbing is that other people saw what was going on and did nothing."

Police were finally called after a female student overhead people talking about the rape. She called 911 and told dispatchers what she had heard, according to Gagan.

The girl was hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries, police said.

A former student, Manuel Ortega, 19, was arrested a few blocks away Saturday night and booked on charges of rape, robbery and kidnapping, Gagan said. Ortega was being held Monday on $800,000 bail.

Investigators were questioning two students Monday evening at the police station in Richmond, a city of 104,000 16 miles northeast of San Francisco.

In the common law, there is no positive obligation for a passerby to intercede when someone else is in danger. An oft-cited, very extreme hypothetical example of that is that you do not have to save a child who is drowning in a puddle. In fact, if you DO intercede, you can open yourself up to civil liability in some cases (ie improperly applying First Aid). It's hardly the case, however, that regular people are so scared of litigation that they always refuse to help you when you're in need. Still, intervening can sometimes be dangerous, and I think a lot of people simply don't know how to react to certain situations.

But then you get a really egregious example like that above, and my gut instinct is that there should be criminal liability for those who failed to do even the bare minimum to prevent the ongoing commission of the assault (ie. at least call the cops). I want to discuss the pros and cons of this, and also try to figure out how criminalising such a failure to act (or creating a civil liability) would even work. Thoughts?

Bad cases make for bad law. Requiring someone to report crimes is not a good policy. If you had to report every speeding car you saw on the highway it would be a problem. Also, ignorance of the law is no defense to crime, therefore in order to not break the law requiring reporting of criminal acts you need to know that conduct is criminal which is kinda tough to expect the average citizen to be able to do.

Everybody (except for the witnesses to this crime that did not do anything, apparently) is upset at the rapists and the people who enjoyed the rape show. However, although the voyeurs are creeps they are not criminals.

[Greed and Death]

link

A 15-year-old girl who went to her homecoming dance was repeatedly gang raped and beaten at Richmond High School for at least two hours while more than a dozen witnesses saw the assault but failed to call police, authorities said today.

The attack occurred Saturday around 9:30 p.m. after the girl had left the dance and was waiting for a ride from her father. She saw a male student she knew, who took her to dark alley behind one of the school buildings, Richmond police said.

Police said alcohol was consumed but were awaiting toxicology tests.

The male student and about six others began raping and beating the girl. As she struggled, more than a dozen witnesses passed by or watched what was going on. The ordeal lasted 2 to 2 1/2 hours, police said.

"The victim was beaten, sexually assaulted and robbed," said Lt. Mark Gagan. "What's equally disturbing is that other people saw what was going on and did nothing."

Police were finally called after a female student overhead people talking about the rape. She called 911 and told dispatchers what she had heard, according to Gagan.

The girl was hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries, police said.

A former student, Manuel Ortega, 19, was arrested a few blocks away Saturday night and booked on charges of rape, robbery and kidnapping, Gagan said. Ortega was being held Monday on $800,000 bail.

Investigators were questioning two students Monday evening at the police station in Richmond, a city of 104,000 16 miles northeast of San Francisco.

In the common law, there is no positive obligation for a passerby to intercede when someone else is in danger. An oft-cited, very extreme hypothetical example of that is that you do not have to save a child who is drowning in a puddle. In fact, if you DO intercede, you can open yourself up to civil liability in some cases (ie improperly applying First Aid). It's hardly the case, however, that regular people are so scared of litigation that they always refuse to help you when you're in need. Still, intervening can sometimes be dangerous, and I think a lot of people simply don't know how to react to certain situations.

But then you get a really egregious example like that above, and my gut instinct is that there should be criminal liability for those who failed to do even the bare minimum to prevent the ongoing commission of the assault (ie. at least call the cops). I want to discuss the pros and cons of this, and also try to figure out how criminalising such a failure to act (or creating a civil liability) would even work. Thoughts?

Bad cases make for bad law. Requiring someone to report crimes is not a good policy. If you had to report every speeding car you saw on the highway it would be a problem. Also, ignorance of the law is no defense to crime, therefore in order to not break the law requiring reporting of criminal acts you need to know that conduct is criminal which is kinda tough to expect the average citizen to be able to do.

Everybody (except for the witnesses to this crime that did not do anything, apparently) is upset at the rapists and the people who enjoyed the rape show. However, although the voyeurs are creeps they are not criminals.

I wouldn't say reporting of a crime is needed but reporting of a situation where someone's life is endanger of death or harm could be a requirement.

[Vault 10]

I believe that, first of all, the witness should have the right (and the implied duty) to act, up to and including applying lethal force, in preventing or stopping a crime.

As for the explicit duty, however, it gets far trickier.

I would be almost certainly able to take down the perpetrators, but far less certain about ensuring the victim's safety. So one at most could only be obliged to act within their capacity, that capacity taken at a low estimate.

It also puts up the question of victimless crimes. Surely we all agree rape is bad; but the views on drugs differ vastly, and even a lot of people who generally believe drugs are bad would be disinclined to act against someone who's just purchasing the substance.

So, until and unless the criminal system is fixed to remove laws against made-up victimless crimes, no, people most definitely shouldn't have any obligation to act. The very presence of a large number of needless oppressive laws in the legal system is a crime against humanity - the citizens shouldn't be obliged to aid in perpetrating it.

[The Atlas Society]

Bad cases make for bad law. Requiring someone to report crimes is not a good policy. If you had to report every speeding car you saw on the highway it would be a problem. Also, ignorance of the law is no defense to crime, therefore in order to not break the law requiring reporting of criminal acts you need to know that conduct is criminal which is kinda tough to expect the average citizen to be able to do.

It shouldn't be required to snitch on everybody, but any self-supporting adult can tell when a crime passes the line of dangerous misdemeanor, like speeding, to a psychopathic felony, like say, murder or a 2-1/2 hour gang rape.

[Muravyets]

While I am absolutely disgusted with the inaction of the passers-by and hope that they feel horribly guilty about it for the rest of their lives, I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of making inaction a crime. So, my (clearly extremely helpful) answer is: I'm not sure.

I agree. It seems to go against the basic concepts of society, community, even law, not to penalize people for simply ignoring violent crime being committed right before their eyes and doing nothing even to help police catch the offenders, not even alerting police that the crime occurred.

On the other hand, I can think of no way to impose a requirement for people to respond to crime that would not create more problems, which could be quite serious, such as:

> flooding emergency call centers with panic calls from people who don't know what they are looking at

> taking up police time to track down and investigate people who did not respond to a crime

> clogging courts with hearings of people trying to defend themselves from penalties for not acting

> false complaints that someone didn't do something, as when a neighbor blames another neighbor for not reporting a burglary they may not have noticed, etc.

> clogging civil courts with litigation by crime victims against anyone who might not have reported said crime

> the politics of who should or should not be subject to such requirements -- different age groups, the disabled, foreign visitors, etc.

> and maybe most important -- creating pressure on people to intervene in crimes they are not qualified to deal with, thus setting up more people to be victims of violence, more people to commit violence (in intervening in situations they don't necessarily understand), even giving impetus to vigilantism.

I wish we lived in a world where people saw the people around them as "us" and not just as objects they navigate around. I wish we lived in a world where, if someone sees someone else getting hurt, they'll do something about it. I admire the people who do think and act that way. But I don't see how you can create a law requiring people to act like they care about others that will not become a monstrous fiction of its own. I think social pressure of shame and condemnation of people who do not report crimes they see, who do not step up to help in some way, would likely be a better approach. And I wish I lived in that world, too, where people's behavior would be held up to public scorn and shame, instead of just shrugged off with a "why should I care if it's not about me?" attitude.

[Neo Art]

Bad cases make for bad law. Requiring someone to report crimes is not a good policy. If you had to report every speeding car you saw on the highway it would be a problem.

There's a difference between "misdemenor", "felony" and "violent felony". This objection is irrelevant as a law can be crafted to take it into account.

Also, ignorance of the law is no defense to crime, therefore in order to not break the law requiring reporting of criminal acts you need to know that conduct is criminal which is kinda tough to expect the average citizen to be able to do.

And, again, the law can easily be framed to make it illegal to fail to report a "knowingly criminal" act. This objection is irrelevant as a law can be crafted to take it into account.

[Dempublicents1]

Bad cases make for bad law. Requiring someone to report crimes is not a good policy. If you had to report every speeding car you saw on the highway it would be a problem. Also, ignorance of the law is no defense to crime, therefore in order to not break the law requiring reporting of criminal acts you need to know that conduct is criminal which is kinda tough to expect the average citizen to be able to do.

Everybody (except for the witnesses to this crime that did not do anything, apparently) is upset at the rapists and the people who enjoyed the rape show. However, although the voyeurs are creeps they are not criminals.

It could conceivably be done only in the most heinous of crimes. For instance, it is my understanding that if you know that a murder has been committed and you don't report it, you can be charged as an accessory to the crime. But the same thing doesn't happen with speeding, etc.