Can you be legally culpable for "moral neglect"?

C

Caveat

Registered User
Messages
4,007
What I mean is if, for example, your intervention (and yours alone - for whatever reason) meant that you could save someone from a terrible injury or even death and you chose not to act, and made it clear to witnesses that you were deliberately not acting

- are there any circumstances under which you could be committing a crime of any sort?

(I obviously exclude doctors/emergency services etc)

Just wondering...
 
I would think so in extreme circumstances as in someone drowning and you stood beside a life ring and neglected to throw it in, but thats purely my laymans approach.
 
MrMan said:
I would think so in extreme circumstances as in someone drowning and you stood beside a life ring and neglected to throw it in, but thats purely my laymans approach.
Click to expand...

No, you would not be open to prosecution in this case. Unlike other countries, like France for instance, there is no 'good samaritan' law in Ireland.
 
No, you would not be open to prosecution in this case. Unlike other countries, like France for instance, there is no 'good samaritan' law in Ireland.
Click to expand...

Pity, but I suppose we should have faith in mankind that such a law is not required.
 
MrMan said:
Pity, but I suppose we should have faith in mankind that such a law is not required.
Click to expand...

Such a law is most definitely required. I remember a few years ago there was an appalling crime at a tube station in London where a woman was raped and nobody helped despite there being at least 20 witnessess/onlookers. Not one of them came to her aid.
 
If there was such a law in Ireland and you didn't act because you panicked, went into shock etc would you have to prove why you didn't act and how would you prove it other than a medic confirming it by which time the person could have regained their senses?
 
I am just thinking of the FBD ad on tv where the 'good samaritan' helps out the 'lady' being mugged and he ends up the biggest mug of them all!

In the society we live in today, it can too dangerous for people to be the good samaritan a lot of the time.

For example those of you who would have given lifts to people thumbing 10 years ago, do you do it now?

I know it is not the identical same idea, but very similar!
 

I totally disagree - despite what some people obviously want, we can't, nor should we, attempt to regulate every aspect of human behaviour.
 
Where there's an instance of suicide, the law means that where someone is deemed to have assisted, then they will be prosecuted. Extradition was unsuccessfully sought for that guy Rev.Exoo in the states on those grounds.
 
Hard cases make bad law...
 
Paulone said:
Where there's an instance of suicide, the law means that where someone is deemed to have assisted, then they will be prosecuted. Extradition was unsuccessfully sought for that guy Rev.Exoo in the states on those grounds.
Click to expand...

That's a different situation though - the 'bystander effect' or whatever it's called is where you do not act - the examply given by you is where the person did act.
 

In the example I gave there were witnesses and witnesses would have been told of your intention not to act/intervene.
 
The bystander effect isn't a Western phenomenon, rather it is a function of groups of people (associations with large Western cities are because the chances of being a lone observer are reduced but the chances of being vilified by the media are increased). Basically where you can see several people to share the responsibility, your perception of your responsibility is diminished. The classic is example is who phones for an ambulance. If you are alone or there are one or two people, normally you can decide immediately that you are the person to do so or see that the other person is doing so. As the group gets larger it becomes harder to know if you should call. There was a very good article about this phenomenon in New Scientist a few months back but I haven't been able to find it unfortunately.

The good thing from Caveat's perspective is that he says
your intervention (and yours alone - for whatever reason)
Click to expand...
which means that there is an increased likelyhood that the person would act rather than wouldn't act. Probably would make their not acting more morally culpable though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register