Do Bystanders Need A Good Samaritan Law

The Bystander Effect was first demonstrated by psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley in 1968, four years after the brutal murder (encompassing thirty or more witnesses) of Kitty Genovese. It is a social phenomenon in which observers believe that someone else in a group will intervene and offer help to a victim in need (1). According to these psychologists, there are two important factors attributed to this phenomenon, social influence and a perceived diffusion of responsibility. Social

When there is an emergency, why is taking out our phones to take a picture or video the very first thing we want to do? Why do we casually walk by a person who is in trouble, and go about our business as if we did not anyone? Why do we not help or act when someone is getting, but instead we just stand in a crowd and watch? Why do we bury our moral instincts during emergencies? “We witness a problem, consider positive action, and respond by doing nothing. Why do we not help in these situations and put our moral instincts in shackles” (Keltner & Marsh, 2017). We as people are bystanders to the world around us daily, but the question is why? The answer to all the “why” questions is the bystander effect.

If you saw someone being attacked on the street, would you help? Many of us would quickly say yes we would help because to state the opposite would say that we are evil human beings. Much research has been done on why people choose to help and why others choose not to. The bystander effect states that the more bystanders present, the less likely it is for someone to help. Sometimes a bystander will assume that because no one else seems concerned, they shouldn't be (Senghas, 2007). Much of the research that has been done supports this definition of the bystander effect. There have also been recent situations where this

The study by Darley and Latane leaves society with the knowledge that everyone who is witnessing an emergency is most likely thinking the same thing “someone else will call for help or has already” so “Always act as if you are the only person there” (Darely & Latane, 1968). The concept of situationism is the driving force behind bystander effect. Situationism is “social behavior is, to a larger extent than people commonly realize, a response to people’s social context, not a function of individual personality” (Fiske, 2010, p. 7). Individuals first have to decide if they are witnessing an emergency. Then they need to decide if they have a responsibility to act which is when situationism comes in. If there are hundreds of witnesses each individual see the situation from a different perspective and responsibility to act is diffused among the crowd. On the other hand if one individual sees an emergency and believes there is no one else to help the responsibility rests on him or her. The context of the situation will determine how an individual will react, but people should consider the reality of everyone believing someone else will react and no one reacting. Kitty Genovese would still be alive if even one person would have called the cops when the first attack started.

I believe that knowing you’ll get fined or punished if you witness a crime and don’t report it will limit the number of bystanders in the world because why lose five to ten thousand dollars when all you need to do is call 911 and report the crime. This law could possibly decrease the amount of crimes because suspects will know people will be reporting crimes if witnessed. The law only requires witnesses to report the crime if it doesn’t put the witness in danger or peril so the fear and excuse of being afraid will no longer be a factor for bystanders.

The bystander effect is defined as the higher the number of people who notice an emergency, the less of a chance that those bystanders will help the victim (as cited in Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Sommers, 2015). The importance of the bystander effect is unparalleled because it determines whether humans will still help in a situation when there are other people available. Bystanders can deal with situations ranging from the mundane to the dire, but what matters is the number of those who take action.

It states that when the amount of bystanders increases, the likelihood of one of the bystanders assisting drastically decreases. Many feel that if they have no obligation to help they should not, almost as if it's none of their business. To victims, a bystander who doesn’t take action is as equally evil as the perpetrator. The easiness of laughing along with others, or acting as if you saw nothing is correlated to the fact that it is easier than ever to be influenced in today’s society. Too often, ignoring the humiliation of another is seen. It may be the easy way out, however, it is certainly not the morally correct way

In fact, “California passed the first Good Samaritan law in 1959” (Sjoerdsma 337). This law protects citizens who help in an accident from being liable for anything that happens. People should be encouraged by this to help others, knowing that they are at no risk. If other states follow in California’s suit, the country as a whole can begin to feel safer. Providing a safe way for pedestrians to help people in need is the first step to overall change. Many people won’t help if they know that they might be putting themselves at risk in the process. This can change, however, by creating laws with protection for the “Good

Bystanders should never be responsible for a crime that they did not attempt to stop. This rule should not be flexible either, as flexibility creates loopholes. Within the past few years reports police brutality and cases of wrongful deaths have taken over the news. Those stories involve highly trained individuals who were in positions of authority. Imagine if bystanders, having no training or knowledge, decided to take matters into their own hands. As triggerhappy Americans continue to roam, recommending that members of the community should try to stop crime is preposterous*.

This essay will be looking at two different cases of bystander behaviour and the similarities between them and differences. How they compare and contrast with reasoning behind why individuals or groups react in the manner they do. Using two examples from Jovan Byford (2014) ‘Living together, living apart: the social life of the neighbourhood’, in John Clarke and Kath Woodward, G. (eds) Understanding Social Lives, Part Two, Milton Keynes: The Open University. These examples cover two approaches the first explaining why people do not intervene to help others when in danger and the second using the discourse approach to the same situation. Using various discussion evidence the essay will put together an outline of the two examples and then provide

Bystander awareness is very important to our society. It is meaningful because everyone can get in a trouble and one day everyone need help. What will happen to our society if all people become indifferent to each other? New generations now are hard heated and nobody wants to risk themselves for the sake of strangers. But on the other side, it is a good point, because unreasonable risk can badly affect on you.

The bystander effect is a concept that concludes that when the number of bystanders is increased in an emergency situation, the less likely any of the bystanders will assist the victim. Kitty Genovese was murdered in front of her New York apartment and about 38 residents witnessed yet decided not to assist by calling police, or trying to stop her attacker. Kitty’s death, sparked a concern for many people and got social psychologists to question if it is in the human nature to not help those in need, it also led to the findings of other elements that are related to the reasons why the bystander effect occurs in large groups compared to when someone witnesses an accident by themselves. One of the main reasons why the bystander effect occurs

The bystander effect is when people choose to stand by when they could help or provide assistance for those in need. It is usually link with the amount of people, the more people, the less likely they are to help. The people often believe that someone else will help and they should not get involved.

Bystanders are everywhere. There is tens, hundreds, thousands of videos where people are there, but not doing anything during violence, physical and verbal. Being a bystander is lacking courage. Lacking the courage to even say one word. Teachers and students about courage in class, but people do not know what it is. Students are taught to be courageous, but not really. They are not taught how to courageous; students are taught the definition, to memorize and to forget. Everyone forgot what courage means when I needed them to remember it.

observe. A bystander, as mentioned before, is someone who witnesses a crime or other sinful event, but does not intervene or speak up afterward due to their apathy.