In 1964, the murder of a young woman named Catherine Genovese caught the public 's attention only after two weeks of its occurrence, resulting in a national term known as the 'Bystander Effect. '. This term basically implies that, while other bystanders are present, one 's sense of responsibility is dwindled, despite watching a victim in danger, and the individual is therefore less inclined to act alone. While, on the optimistic side of this controversy, some people ignore the urge to witness over act, many innocent people like Catherine continue to suffer and die due to the inherited and technological apathy of the twenty-first century. The objective of this paper is to educate would-be bystanders and raise awareness about the 'Bystander
…show more content…
As stated previously, the Bystander Effect is the declining of one 's sense of responsibility towards an endangered person while other bystanders are also present, often leading to a lack of action. In essence, the principle is that if no other person should act around a victim towards danger, then neither should that person. In a psychological inspection, the fear of enduring harm to oneself and the degree of public authority have a rooted relationship with the person 's personality and mentality. People are naturally rebellious, so why should anyone person act when those of highest authority do not? This is a dangerously incorrect standpoint. While, on one hand, the thought of self-preservation is Ideal as for finding success in a democratical country, it is also the downfall of an individual 's moralistic and their community. Living in a free society in itself is a risk; merely traveling to such a location costs a pretty dime and making a stake is no easy feat. But in order to have been successful and forge a beneficial path for ourselves, the risk in dependency and intervention must be accepted as a regular basis of forming friendships and building a more livable community. The murder surrounding the start of this controversy has even been dug into by psychological experts nationally, and even internationally. Psychologists John …show more content…
36). And perhaps this is true, but the evidence that free societies have presented, America in this particular case, shows that life put in the responsibility of others is highly likely to shift into the hands of another. The citizens of a community should not have to give up their freedom to ensure their lives be kept safe, or their valuables unharmed, nor their business sabotaged. A community is a well knit network of neighbors and servicemen looking out for one another, and ensuring their fellow members are safe at all times possible. This may seems as if there is a choice in it, whether to act or not on intervention, but the fear of harm should not hinder any one person. If living in a free society is a risk in itself, inaction and self-preservation would only broaden that risk. Measures can be taken, and in time, things can be healed, but letting a life extinguish is an insincere gesture that stains one 's conscious. Society is not lost, and apathy has not won; the future generation still has a chance in our mishaps. Acting now, in the present state of fear and danger, is the only chance it
As stated previously, the Bystander Effect is the declining of one 's sense of responsibility towards an endangered person while other bystanders are also present, often leading to a lack of action. In essence, the principle is that if no other person should act around a victim towards danger, then neither should that person. In a psychological inspection, the fear of enduring harm to oneself and the degree of public authority have a rooted relationship with the person 's personality and mentality. People are naturally rebellious, so why should anyone person act when those of highest authority do not? This is a dangerously incorrect standpoint. While, on one hand, the thought of self-preservation is Ideal as for finding success in a democratical country, it is also the downfall of an individual 's moralistic and their community. Living in a free society in itself is a risk; merely traveling to such a location costs a pretty dime and making a stake is no easy feat. But in order to have been successful and forge a beneficial path for ourselves, the risk in dependency and intervention must be accepted as a regular basis of forming friendships and building a more livable community. The murder surrounding the start of this controversy has even been dug into by psychological experts nationally, and even internationally. Psychologists John …show more content…
36). And perhaps this is true, but the evidence that free societies have presented, America in this particular case, shows that life put in the responsibility of others is highly likely to shift into the hands of another. The citizens of a community should not have to give up their freedom to ensure their lives be kept safe, or their valuables unharmed, nor their business sabotaged. A community is a well knit network of neighbors and servicemen looking out for one another, and ensuring their fellow members are safe at all times possible. This may seems as if there is a choice in it, whether to act or not on intervention, but the fear of harm should not hinder any one person. If living in a free society is a risk in itself, inaction and self-preservation would only broaden that risk. Measures can be taken, and in time, things can be healed, but letting a life extinguish is an insincere gesture that stains one 's conscious. Society is not lost, and apathy has not won; the future generation still has a chance in our mishaps. Acting now, in the present state of fear and danger, is the only chance it