Who Cares?????

themanfrommayo

I read in today's Herald where a young woman was raped by up to 7 men in California and passers by went about their business without 1 of them phoning the police.I know the accepted advice is "don't get involved"but surely an anonymous phone call is accepted?Then of course,people say we don't know the full facts but even to an ignoramous,a crime is a crime.How long until the same thing happens here,or is it happening already?We are often compared to animals but many times we do what even animals would conside "inappropriate".I feel unless mankind stands back and "smells the coffee",the end of the world,as we know it,could well be nigh.

AARRRGH

I'd like to know if it actually looked like a rape. Maybe it wasn't obvious? Or maybe the passers by simply didn't notice it?

WeeBushy

themanfrommayo wrote: »

I read in today's Herald where a young woman was raped by up to 7 men in California and passers by went about their business without 1 of them phoning the police.I know the accepted advice is "don't get involved"but surely an anonymous phone call is accepted?Then of course,people say we don't know the full facts but even to an ignoramous,a crime is a crime.How long until the same thing happens here,or is it happening already?We are often compared to animals but many times we do what even animals would conside "inappropriate".I feel unless mankind stands back and "smells the coffee",the end of the world,as we know it,could well be nigh.

Well firstly we are animals...

The story was in the Herald so I'm inclined not to take what they say too seriously. I'm sure it was a complete over exaggeration of what actually happened.

herya

I don't think they were passers by in the street, it looks like she was assaulted by a number of males while similar number were standing around and possibly joining, all in some back alley behind a school. Scum of earth...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2333008/richmond_high_school_15yearold_gang.html?cat=17

murrayp4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility

clartharlear

Samaritans only work on lonely roads.
The bystander effect means that the sense of responsibility to aid others is a constant, divided ever more thinly depending on the number of people in the vicinity. Everyone who walked by would assume that one of the other passers-by would make that phonecall.

The bystander effect was first demonstrated in the laboratory by John Darley and Bibb Latane in 1968.[3] These researchers launched a series of experiments that resulted in one of the strongest and most replicable effects in social psychology. In a typical experiment, the participant is either alone or among a group of other participants or confederates. An emergency situation is then staged — examples include smoke pouring from a vent in the room, a woman falling and becoming injured, a student having an epileptic seizure, etc. The researchers then measure how long it takes the participants to act, and whether or not they intervene at all. These experiments virtually always find that the presence of others inhibits helping, often by a large margin

herya

clartharlear wrote: »

Samaritans only work on lonely roads.
The bystander effect means that the sense of responsibility to aid others is a constant, divided ever more thinly depending on the number of people in the vicinity. Everyone who walked by would assume that one of the other passers-by would make that phonecall.

If they were passers by at all, from the description they were more like perpetrators or approving spectators.

WeeBushy

herya wrote: »

If they were passers by at all, from the description they were more like perpetrators or approving spectators.

Yeah by the sound of it the sickos were either joining in or there to watch... its horrible to think about. I'm sure if normal people had come across this someone would've done something or called the police.

clartharlear

WeeBushy wrote: »

I'm sure if normal people had come across this someone would've done something or called the police.

I'm sure they wouldn't.

WeeBushy

clartharlear wrote: »

I'm sure they wouldn't.

You honestly think if a 15 year old girl was being viciously raped by a group of men and a crowd of normal people like you or I saw it, no one would do anything? I find that hard to believe.

clartharlear

I honestly do. Depressing, huh?
If you saw, OR I saw it, OR anyone other person, sure we'd help. But one out of a crowd?
It's a pretty well studied and verified phenomenon.
http://www.uncommon-knowledge.co.uk/articles/bystander-apathy.html
http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/The_Bystander_Apathy_Effect
http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/latane_bystand.html
http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch15_social/bystandy_apathy.html

The infamous, notorious Milgram did work on this.

On Friday 13 March in 1964, 28-year-old Catherine Genovese was arriving home in her built-up neighbourhood from a late night shift as a bar manager in Queens, New York. She was suddenly attacked with a knife by a man named Winston Moseley. She screamed aloud “Oh my God, I've been stabbed! Please help me!” We know what she screamed because people heard her. People who didn't lift a finger to help. People who didn't want to 'get involved', who didn't call the police.

Moseley saw lights come on in the apartments nearby. He knew people were watching. He ran off, leaving Catherine to drag herself into a doorway where she lay bleeding - she could possibly have survived at this point. But her attacker decided to return to finish off what he'd started because, as he later said in court: "It didn't seem like anyone was going to stop me!" Although badly weakened by now, she again screamed for help. Of 38 witnesses who heard or saw some part of the attack (which took place over about half an hour in total), not one took action to help her. By the time the police were eventually called, she was dead.

herya

Kitty Genovese case is indisputable but then there are loads of other assaults where observers do report the crime, so no point in generalising either way. In the school alley case the observers were all involved in one way or another so clearly not interested in reporting anything.

WeeBushy

clartharlear wrote: »

I honestly do. Depressing, huh?
If you saw, OR I saw it, OR anyone other person, sure we'd help. But one out of a crowd?
It's a pretty well studied and verified phenomenon.
http://www.uncommon-knowledge.co.uk/articles/bystander-apathy.html
http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/The_Bystander_Apathy_Effect
http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/latane_bystand.html
http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch15_social/bystandy_apathy.html

The infamous, notorious Milgram did work on this.

That is one, very unfortunate, case. However only one of the links is to a reputable peer reviewed paper, so I wouldn't really call it well studied and verified based on those. I could right anything I wanted on the net but doesn't make true.

As heya said, that is one incident out many, many incidences where they are reported/something is done.

herya

WeeBushy wrote: »

As heya said, that is one incident out many, many incidences where they are reported/something is done.

Just to clarify, I'm quite sure there were and are other incidents of all sorts that went unreported, but I'd be inclined to believe that more were reported. The Genovese case is just so well known because that's when the phenomenon was defined.

clartharlear

herya wrote: »

In the school alley case the observers were all involved in one way or another so clearly not interested in reporting anything.

Yup, I agree that this case does not really involve "bystanders".

WeeBushy wrote: »

However only one of the links is to a reputable peer reviewed paper, so I wouldn't really call it well studied and verified based on those.

Sorry, that was my lazy googling that I just threw up the first few links. I didn't call it well studied based on those either. I don't have journal access on this computer. I'll at least go to google scholar now...
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1973-09019-001

diffusion of responsibility effect.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119543961/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

herya wrote: »

Just to clarify, I'm quite sure there were and are other incidents of all sorts that went unreported, but I'd be inclined to believe that more were reported. The Genovese case is just so well known because that's when the phenomenon was defined.

But that's all it is - an inclination to believe, which probably speaks better of you than of me.
It's hard to empirically prove what is unreported.

herya

clartharlear wrote: »

But that's all it is - an inclination to believe, which probably speaks better of you than of me.
It's hard to empirically prove what is unreported.

I'd still hazard a guess that most cases involving observers are reported (by them, not only by the victim). If the victim survives, they can tell if there were any passive observers nearby and such cases usually make the papers so they'd be full of them if it was so frequent.

Also, observers may not have a chance to interrupt or report during an actual assault since it's over too soon but they will help afterwards, especially once the assailant is gone and the physical risk to themselves limited. Lots of factors!

clartharlear

You're right - lots of factors!

Self-awareness:3 The (perceived) presence of an audience to his or her actions
inhibits the individual from acting. He or she does not want to appear foolish
or inappropriate in front of others.
• Social cues: Individuals actively look to one another for cues about howto behave
in the situation. The inaction of otherswill likely cause the inaction of the individual.
These social cues can interact with the othermechanisms to increase the effect.
If all individuals are initially inhibited, to the audience all will appear inactive.
Every individual will perceive all others as inactive, further inhibiting action.
• Blocking: When multiple bystanders take action, the emergency often can
become worse. The action—or perceived or suspected action—of one bystander
effectively blocks others from taking action.
• Diffuse responsibility: In a situation where only a small percentage of the bystanders
can take action, responsibility is diffuse. Each individual feels he or she
has only limited responsibility for the negative consequences of inaction.

But I'm talking about only when there are crowds of observers. This in itself would be very rare, so the cases in which the victim reports that there were passive observers would be even rarer. The newspapers wouldn't be full of them. As a corollary, it has been shown (cite needed, I know) that education about the bystander effect reduces it considerably. So anyone who reads a newspaper article about this, or about Genovese, or about Derrion Albert etc, is more likely to be able to respond.

The very fact is that anyone reading about this in horror, thinking "*I* would've helped her" is more likely to help than someone who has never heard of (and been upset by) bystander apathy.

WeeBushy

clartharlear wrote: »

Sorry, that was my lazy googling that I just threw up the first few links. I didn't call it well studied based on those either. I don't have journal access on this computer. I'll at least go to google scholar now...
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1973-09019-001

diffusion of responsibility effect.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119543961/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
But that's all it is - an inclination to believe, which probably speaks better of you than of me.
It's hard to empirically prove what is unreported.

I'd never actually heard of this phenomenom before, prob why I didn't believe you

It's interesting, in a perverse sort of way. I guess I have trouble with it because I could not ever see myself acting in such a way. Interesting insight into the human mind though.

herya

clartharlear wrote: »

As a corollary, it has been shown (cite needed, I know) that education about the bystander effect reduces it considerably. So anyone who reads a newspaper article about this, or about Genovese, or about Derrion Albert etc, is more likely to be able to respond.

The very fact is that anyone reading about this in horror, thinking "*I* would've helped her" is more likely to help than someone who has never heard of (and been upset by) bystander apathy.

Very true, and another thing worth remembering (which I believe is now standard in any urban survival reading, also due to Genovese effect) is when you need help or there's an emergency, never form general requests like "help me" or "please call the guards" but always point to a specific person and ask looking straight at them "can you please call the guards sir I can see you have your mobile on you" or "lads over there can you please help me lift and move this gent". This basically eliminates the need to decide who does what between the observers. If you address them this way they are very unlikely to refuse and even if they do you know it immediately and can ask someone else instead of waiting and possibly never receiving help.

miec

Very true, and another thing worth remembering (which I believe is now standard in any urban survival reading, also due to Genovese effect) is when you need help or there's an emergency, never form general requests like "help me" or "please call the guards" but always point to a specific person and ask looking straight at them "can you please call the guards sir I can see you have your mobile on you" or "lads over there can you please help me lift and move this gent". This basically eliminates the need to decide who does what between the observers. If you address them this way they are very unlikely to refuse and even if they do you know it immediately and can ask someone else instead of waiting and possibly never receiving help.

That's bloody good advice there, if needed I'll keep it in mind.
Whilst is very scary to intervene on a crime and I never felt great doing it I have intervened three times. Twice in the UK and once here (quite recently) I think I am mad to intervene but I could not walk away and know that someone was being hurt. The first time an asian girl was being pulled around by some other teenagers, I shouted at them and they ran away, she told me they were trying to rob her. The second time I saw a man ran towards myself and an ex of mine, he said a man was dragging a woman and I thought oh my god he is going to rape her, anyhow I shouted at the man to let the woman go (my ex and the other guy said nothing) it turned out they were a couple arguing, and I reasoned with the man to let her go, he did.

The last time was recent, this scumbag was shouting abuse at two foreign guys, then he got a knuckleduster and was about to beat them with it, I could not witness it so I asked him not to, he came over and told me to mind my own business, I said don't do it please. He made out they were trying to rob his jacket (no one would have robbed his ****ty, dirty jacket). Miracously he didn't touch them, he went off mouthing but I nearly got sick with fear and thinking was I stupid. I think most people don't interfere because they are afraid of getting attacked and I don't blame them, because it often happens. Would I next time? I don't know but I would definately ring the guards, I could not ignore it, that much I know but I can understand why people ignore these things. You want to pretend its not happening.

WeeBushy

miec wrote: »

That's bloody good advice there, if needed I'll keep it in mind.
Whilst is very scary to intervene on a crime and I never felt great doing it I have intervened three times. Twice in the UK and once here (quite recently) I think I am mad to intervene but I could not walk away and know that someone was being hurt. The first time an asian girl was being pulled around by some other teenagers, I shouted at them and they ran away, she told me they were trying to rob her. The second time I saw a man ran towards myself and an ex of mine, he said a man was dragging a woman and I thought oh my god he is going to rape her, anyhow I shouted at the man to let the woman go (my ex and the other guy said nothing) it turned out they were a couple arguing, and I reasoned with the man to let her go, he did.

The last time was recent, this scumbag was shouting abuse at two foreign guys, then he got a knuckleduster and was about to beat them with it, I could not witness it so I asked him not to, he came over and told me to mind my own business, I said don't do it please. He made out they were trying to rob his jacket (no one would have robbed his ****ty, dirty jacket). Miracously he didn't touch them, he went off mouthing but I nearly got sick with fear and thinking was I stupid. I think most people don't interfere because they are afraid of getting attacked and I don't blame them, because it often happens. Would I next time? I don't know but I would definately ring the guards, I could not ignore it, that much I know but I can understand why people ignore these things. You want to pretend its not happening.

That's extremely brave and heartwarming to hear.

The only time I've ever intervened in a situation was in Nice a few years ago when I was there learning french. I saw a man beating a dog (animal welfare is a huge passion of mine) and in my very poor french shouted at him and managed to get him to stop. He came over shouting at me in french but eventually left and the dog ran away. I cried after I was so scared and shook, but don't think I could live with myself if I did nothing.

herya

Another thing re bystander apathy is that people are not actually used to witnessing violence. Some of the observers might be as shocked as the victims and unable to act or even gather their thoughts together for a good while, others might engage disbelief and start looking for cameras first. It's not common for an untrained person to have coherent and efficient reactions when facing a violent scene, esp a complicated one.

I remember reading about an incident when a female Garda was assaulted in Temple Bar by a bunch of skangers, amle and female. Nobody helped her, people were just taking pics on their mobiles. It sounds surreal and heartless but then how many of them thought it's a staged scene or a movie filmed somewhere between Hapenny Bridge and Gogarty's, among people handing out night club leaflets? And how many suspected it's for real at first but then they saw this happy crowd around they though "shoot I must be wrong, they've been here before me so they know better"?

Hindsight is a beautiful thing but it's not always easy for random people to act in a flurry of events they don't understand. Not that I justify it of course, and some cases are straightforward enough but still.