Good Samaritan Law Research Paper

Millions would speed and not follow the law in various ways. This affects everyone around them. Public safety laws are in effect for a reason, and they are based upon keeping the mass of society healthy. Putting others health before individual freedom shows the integrity in humans. This shows that they know the right thing to do and why doing some actions is wrong.

In the essay “Thirty-Eight who saw Murder didn’t call the Police”, Martin Gansberg describes how selfish and inconsiderable some people can be. He claims that society should be more involved in taking action when seeing violent or life threatening events occurring in their communities.

In the article Gansberg said there were three attacked but there were two and in fact two people called the police. Once the ambulance arrived, Kitty was in the arms of a neighbor and friend Sophia Farrar. Farrar left her apartment to be with Kitty’s side with no idea whether it was safe or not. Lemman’s article did not serve to just criticize Gansberg but also added key details of the murder and witnesses like Joseph Fink and Karl Ross. Fink who worked in the apartment building across from Kitty saw the first attack and after watching Moseley flee, took a nap. Ross who was a friend and neighbor of Kitty’s was drunk that night. He heard the first attack did not help but opened his door a crack during the second attack and saw Moseley stab Kitty. Ross than made a few phone calls one to a friend who told him to stay out of it and then crawled across the roof into a friend’s apartment where he later called the police. The Kitty Genovese case helped to push the creation of 911, in 1964 to call the police in New York you had to use a specific number of each precinct, and your call was not always answered. Kitty’s case also sparked psychologist Bibb Latane and John Darley to create a new realm of research called the bystander

Anyone convicted under the proposed law would face an automatic increase in prison sentence, and some homicides would become death penalty eligible(Journal Record, Staff). I believe this method might not be successful due to many homicides committed by gang members which would cause many young men to face the death penalty.

There are many negative consequences of this law. First, many citizens could argue such law would be setting these victims apart, creating a special class of citizen whose attackers would face more serve punishments than other citizens for the same crimes based on the attributes of the victims alone. . This could be seen as providing unequal protection under the law. Equality of citizens in the eyes of the law would be called into question. Also, setting these victims apart would also possibly cause resentment, and therefore result in more hatred directed toward these individuals or groups. This hate crime law could be viewed as unfair. The American justice system is based on the principle that everyone is treated the same, and this law goes against that principal. Secondly, another negative effect would be it could be argued as unconstitutional. The Possible Constitutional Challenges to the law would be that this law would infringe on citizens first amendment. Such legislation would infringe on freedom of speech. This law would call into question where the future of hate crime laws could lead. If a citizen can be more severely punished for hate crimes, could they down the future be criminalized for other behaviors such as gestures, or certain speech that could possibly be seen as threatening toward people of specific attributes. criminalized. The freedoms of conscience and speech would be

Regarding the billing cycle name, obviously, guardians will pay the current fee and the following 2 weeks fee after the current week in advance.

In modern society’s media we find solace in the idea that heroes are able to save the day, whether they have some unexplainable powers or are your average pedestrian that does an act of heroism so extraordinary that it has to be covered. When these acts are performed, whether they are in movies or in our own reality, the question is presented whether or not the action was morally just or not. A form of media that truly represents said moral question is Andre Dubus’ “Killings.” For the father of Frank Fowler, Matt, the idea of killing Richard Strout is justified because of the actions committed onto his son. To analyze the killing of Richard Strout one must first assess why Strout deserved to die.

This bill will affect the federal government. It would help by decreasing the chances of police brutality happening in the U.S. 37% of black people were killed by the police in 2015. Frankie Taylor was beaten up and blinded by some police officer in August 10, 2015. According to, http://thefreethoughtproject.com/, ¨After police put him in a restraint chair and beat him unconscious, Taylor was given no medical treatment. Instead, he was transferred to the Macomb County Jail. Upon finally getting out of jail, Taylor ended up at Detroit Receiving Hospital to undergo emergency surgery on his eye. However, it was too late.¨ This prove that Frankie was beaten up and blinded by the same people that should be protecting us not hurting us. This bill

It is more fair and equitable compared to the past laws, as it allows for restorative justice, reintegration, and rehabilitation.

This law can easily be viewed as a Civil Rights violation, and should be exercised with caution. Lawyers are already lining up, poised to flood the courts with lawsuits claiming exactly

If this law was changed it would benefit several people for it would create less stress for certain people and it simply makes sense to change it. Although there will be a few people that may not agree with it, although the reasons that will be shared can help change those people’s minds.

One of the initiatives to arise from the task force is the Good Samaritan Law. Senate Bill 654, passed by Governor Larry Hogan, put the Good Samaritan Law into effect on October 1st, 2015. Those involved in a situation involving drugs are less likely to call 911 because they fear they will be in trouble. This law protects individuals who call in an overdose from further prosecution. It extends to those who are currently on parole and protects their probation status from being effected. Hopefully this increases the number of reported overdoses, so the right medical personnel can respond with assistance while decreasing the number of death exponentially.

The law will raise more racism and police may be blamed for suspecting something illegal from immigrants just because of their skin color. Also, the cost could be very high and pricey to keep this law in place and enforced. The 4th amendment could also be pushed aside or abused. It states that unreasonable searches and seizures are not allowed to happen, but it could be abused with the illegal immigrants and this law. The cons may take away from the pros, but it all depends on perspective and what people think is most important to

The Mandatory Arrest laws came about in 1984, when police failed to protect a woman who was being brutally beaten by her husband. As a result the federal district court in Connecticut and a group of lawmakers decided to implement a new set of rules allowing police the right to intervene in domestic situations and make an arrest on the spot. It sounds like a good idea at first until you look closer at the numbers and the fourth amendment.

Since the early 1990s, Australian judicial system has experienced a great flux revolving around the notion of good faith in the performance the enforcement of contracts. The leading case Renard Construction (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (Renard) along with Preistly JA’s judgment commenced the controversial introduction of universal obligation of good faith in all contracts. Such introduction was also confronted by the opposing force of the more conservative judgments, such as those of Meagher JA in Renard and Gummow J in Service Station Association v Berg Bennett & Associates Pty Ltd . In order to correctly assess the extent to which the High Court of Australia should recognize that in all contracts, parties