“Moral courage is not driven by overt marching orders.” These are the wise words of Robert F. Kennedy as he described the feeling that is moral courage. This moral courage is felt by many individuals, such as a homeless man in New York who acted without needing to be told to when he witnessed a woman being mugged. He wasn’t expecting a reward for this action, and simply acted on his own conscience. However, his reward for his actions was being stabbed by the mugger and left to die as several onlookers ignored him. In the case of Catherine “Kitty” Genovese, her murder was witnessed by an estimated 38 witnesses as she was stabbed in a New York alleyway. Recent and past news events involving bystanders who witness but do not report or help victims
…show more content…
John Darley and Bibb Latané, two of the foremost experts on the bystander effect, explain that in a one-on-one scenario with a victim, the bystander is more likely to provide aid as they are the only ones aware of the situation. However, in situations involving multiple bystanders, they are less likely to provide any assistance. Darley and Latané state that this happens because the responsibility to take action is dispersed onto a larger population of people (“When Will”). While the creation of a duty to rescue law sounds promising, the state of California should not create a law because it is wrong to force individuals to act not on their own will, wrong to put someone unqualified into a situation they might make worse, and unfair to our already overburdened law enforcement system. To begin with, we must ask ourselves this question: Is it right to force our morals? The creation of these good samaritan laws can force people who wouldn’t typically come to someone's aid to do something that isn’t in their nature. During the Boston Marathon bombings, a man tore off his shirt to put out the flames, incinerating another. The man's actions are assumed to be derived from the loss of his son during the Iraq …show more content…
Forcing someone to fight against their own feelings and nature is a crime in itself. Another reason we should not constitute good samaritan laws is because it puts ordinary citizens into situations where a person's life is at stake and the wrong move could injure or kill someone. While some may argue that a person could simply dial 911 and the problem is over. However, if the situation calls for immediate action, something could go wrong in the time it takes for reinforcements to arrive. But if a person attempts to help a victim, they could end up worsening the scenario. So now, they are thrown into this cycle of “What do I do?”. If they do nothing, they’ll be charged without assistance. If they call 911, the situation might get out of hand before help arrives. Finally, if they choose to take action, they’re inadequate help may cause more harm than good. Lastly, the creation of the law adds a new dimension to a situation that law enforcement must deal with. Let's say there was a mugging that happened in Times Square in New York. Hundreds of people are witness to this, but only a handful come to the aid of the person being
John Darley and Bibb Latané, two of the foremost experts on the bystander effect, explain that in a one-on-one scenario with a victim, the bystander is more likely to provide aid as they are the only ones aware of the situation. However, in situations involving multiple bystanders, they are less likely to provide any assistance. Darley and Latané state that this happens because the responsibility to take action is dispersed onto a larger population of people (“When Will”). While the creation of a duty to rescue law sounds promising, the state of California should not create a law because it is wrong to force individuals to act not on their own will, wrong to put someone unqualified into a situation they might make worse, and unfair to our already overburdened law enforcement system. To begin with, we must ask ourselves this question: Is it right to force our morals? The creation of these good samaritan laws can force people who wouldn’t typically come to someone's aid to do something that isn’t in their nature. During the Boston Marathon bombings, a man tore off his shirt to put out the flames, incinerating another. The man's actions are assumed to be derived from the loss of his son during the Iraq …show more content…
Forcing someone to fight against their own feelings and nature is a crime in itself. Another reason we should not constitute good samaritan laws is because it puts ordinary citizens into situations where a person's life is at stake and the wrong move could injure or kill someone. While some may argue that a person could simply dial 911 and the problem is over. However, if the situation calls for immediate action, something could go wrong in the time it takes for reinforcements to arrive. But if a person attempts to help a victim, they could end up worsening the scenario. So now, they are thrown into this cycle of “What do I do?”. If they do nothing, they’ll be charged without assistance. If they call 911, the situation might get out of hand before help arrives. Finally, if they choose to take action, they’re inadequate help may cause more harm than good. Lastly, the creation of the law adds a new dimension to a situation that law enforcement must deal with. Let's say there was a mugging that happened in Times Square in New York. Hundreds of people are witness to this, but only a handful come to the aid of the person being