By: Alex Terrone
I recently re-watched the series finale of Seinfeld after reading Professor Rosenbaum’s description of it in his book, The Myth of Moral Justice. In the episode, Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer are arrested under Massachusetts’ newly passed Good Samaritan Law. The law imposes a duty on bystanders to help strangers in perilous situations. Normally, one would not be required to act, even when in the presence of others in need of assistance. The four characters witness an overweight man being robbed at gunpoint. Instead of coming to his aid, they videotape it and relentlessly ridicule the man’s weight. The Good Samaritan Law essentially converts their apathy into guilt and inaction into a chargeable act almost comparable to aiding and abetting the robbery.
In his book, Professor Rosenbaum explains the absence of a duty to rescue in American law. Morally, the idea that someone can witness a criminal act and not be required to physically prevent it or try to get help is despicable. Legally, however, it has been rationalized that if one has not acted, he has committed no crime and cannot prosecuted. The defense attorney representing the four characters in Seinfeld argues this concept:
“You know what these four people were? They were innocent bystanders. Now, you just think about that term. Innocent. Bystanders. Because that’s exactly what they were. We know they were bystanders, nobody’s disputing that. So how can a bystander be guilty? No such thing. Have you ever heard of a guilty bystander? No, because you cannot be a bystander and be guilty. Bystanders are by definition, innocent. That is the nature of bystanding. But no, they want to change nature here. They want to create a whole new animal – the guilty bystander.”
This argument seems underdeveloped and cyclical, but it does get the point across. Jerry, Elaine, George, Kramer did not hold a gun to a man’s head. They did not steal his money. They simply witnessed a crime. Why should a state, therefore, impose an active duty on people who find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time to act on another’s behalf? Why should someone be obligated to risk his own safety, especially for a complete stranger? I say, why not?
The government already imposes this type of duty on its citizens. Obscured by habit, our obligation to pay taxes is essentially a duty to help a stranger. These taxes fundamentally aid anonymous recipients by financing their social security, Medicare and Medicaid package, public education and so forth. We all begrudgingly comply with these laws. So why shouldn’t states also have the ability to impose another truly beneficial obligation on its citizens? We are already forced to help one another financially. Why shouldn’t we as a collective society be required to physically help our peers and neighbors out of a dangerous situation? Are Good Samaritan laws less legally utilized because they are deemed as too morally intrusive?
I think that using morality as a legal crutch is lazy and irrelevant. People’s views of what is morally correct greatly differ. Personally, I only view acts as “moral” when they originate from benevolence. In this vein of thinking, if Good Samaritan laws were universally enacted and we were dictated to perform certain functions, these actions would thus be stripped of their morality. We would then be able to solely focus on the legal consequences of inaction in the presence of a crime. In the Seinfeld situation, the robbery would have occurred whether or not the characters had witnessed it. Because of the Good Samaritan Law, the State was permitted to deem the characters’ decision to not act as a legally punishable action, regardless of their individual moral perceptions.
[...] hearing me describe this Halvard pointed out that it sounded quite like the idea of the guilty bystander whereby if you see a problem with the code and do nothing about it then you are guilty by [...]