Civil Duty

RedPlanet

I remember a newstory awhile back:
Washington sniper was still at large and their latest victim was a man putting petrol in his car at some petrol station.
Another punter was there and saw the man lying on the ground shot and bleeding.
The bloke didn't call emergency services or anything, he just up and left, left the man critically wounded just where he lie.
This was captured on CCTV.
Later the police tried charging him with something about failing to do his Civil Duty (ring the emergency services, report the crime, remain at crime scene)
I don't know what happened with the case.
But anyway i was thinking at the time it should be thrown out of court.
Unless it is actually written in law that one must perform certain civil duties during crisis.
I doubt that it is.

But even if it were, i'd have to say an individual should have the perfect right to choose to get involved or not.
And while in this exceptional circumstance (washington sniper victim) we'd all prefer to see an individual get involved and ring the Emergency Services; I would still have to defend his right to opt out.

Heyes

Well to be honest im shocked that someone would not report something of this act. Granted yes get in the car and run, but pick up a phone and let the police know what is going on, the criminal could have been caught a lot quicker if people had responded earlier.

I dont however believe that the police have a case here, it was an immediate reaction by the person, it was nt pre empted

Jackie laughlin

I'm worried by the term "right" in the original posting. There may not be a legal obligation on a person to behave decently or humanely but to say that they have a RIGHT so to misbehave means that they could not be obliged to behave otherwise.

Sleepy

Well, I know in the Northern Territories in Australia, it's illegal to pass by a breakdown without offering assistance. Think it's called the 'Good Samaritan' law and tbh, I'd fully agree with it. Out there it could be days before a second person passed your direction so if someone doesn't help they're effectively sentencing you to death.

I can't see why anyone would have a problem with such laws tbh.

tbh

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_Law

Good Samaritan laws in the United States and Canada are laws protecting from blame those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. The name Good Samaritan refers to the famous parable told by Jesus in the New Testament (Luke 10:33-35).

In other countries (including in the Canadian province of Quebec), Good Samaritan laws describe a legal requirement for citizens to assist people in distress, unless doing so would put themselves in harm's way. Citizens are often required to, at minimum, call the local emergency number, unless doing so would be harmful, in which case, the authorities should be contacted when the harmful situation has been removed. Such laws currently exist in countries such as Italy, Japan, France, Andorra, and Spain. The photographers at the scene of Princess Diana's fatal car accident were investigated for violation of French good samaritan law. In Germany, "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" (neglect of duty to provide assistance) is an offense; a citizen is obliged to provide first aid when necessary and is immune from prosecution if assistance given in good faith turns out to be harmful. In Germany, knowledge of first aid is a prerequisite for the granting of a driving license.

Jackie laughlin

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I'm worried by the term "right" in the original posting. There may not be a legal obligation on a person to behave decently or humanely but to say that they have a RIGHT so to misbehave means that they could not be obliged to behave otherwise.

Not sure i agree with that. I think what is meant is a negative right. A right not to be compelled by the state follow a particular course of action in a given situation. A negative right isn't the same thing as a positive obligaton.

Jackie laughlin

I take it you are borrowing from Berlin's distinction between negative and positive liberty. I wasn't being quite so thoughtful in what I said. Some of the posts above refer to legal obligations which I would support. However, if a right to walk away were established here, say, by judicial review of the constitution, then legal obligations to come to someone's aid would not be possible in Ireland without referendum.