Looking at history
If a people know atrocities are being committed such as Germans with the concentration camps which at the time a lot of them seed they did not now about which was crap when it was going on right there
Sorry I digress if the people know and let it happen or supported it however indirectly should they be held accountable for the actions of the ones that actually perpetrated the offence
If someone knows a crime is being committed and does not even report it should they be criminally liable?
2006-08-12 14:17:56 · 19 answers · asked by mikel m 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
lets have fun with this one think about it before answer if it was involving someone in your family on either side how would you feal
2006-08-12 14:19:58 · update #1
come on if no why not
2006-08-12 14:20:56 · update #2
come on people I know there are some smart people out there
2006-08-12 14:22:07 · update #3
come on this being a rat c*ap is a joke moraly if you see it or know about it you should at LEAST report it the lack of this is one of the major things wrong with the world today
2006-08-12 14:39:45 · update #4
it is nice to see that there are some people out there whith some morals is nice
2006-08-12 14:41:53 · update #5
sorry nice wording
2006-08-12 14:43:37 · update #6
Yes if people knew that something was happening and allowed it to happen, stood back and watched while it happened. Yes they should be held accountable. In U.S. law, if you see someone commit a crime and do not come forward to help find and arrest that person you are guilty of hampering a police investigation. Granted you might only get a slap on the wrist, but there are charges filed.
2006-08-12 14:25:29 · answer #1 · answered by mom of girls 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Some countries around the world, and some states here in the US, have "Good Samaritan Laws" that basically hold you responsible for not reporting a crime. Germany has very strict views concerning these laws. So yes, if a crime is being commited the least you could do is report it.
About the supporting issue, I really don't know. What do you mean by "support"? If its someone backing the idea and basically agreeing with the one committing the attrocities but not actually commiting the crime, I don't think they should be held accountable, criminally speaking, morally yes. The point on issue on if they are accountable or not is whether with their interference the atrocity could have been prevented. Where they in a position that would have allowed them to change the outcome of the crime? and Was the crime possible because they didnt do anything or encouraged it? If so, then they should of course be held accountable. You can not be held accountable for something you didn't have the power to stop.
2006-08-12 21:46:08 · answer #2 · answered by Dante 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
Because the person who just lets the crime happen may or may not have the intent to cause the harm, but either way they didn't act on it.
Bu the person who commits the crime definitely had the intent. Just as the accomplice or the co-conspirator did. And they deserve to be punished.
That distinction, between intent and action, or lack of action, is the only way the legal system will work.
Standing by and watching may be morally wrong under many belief systems, but it can't be criminal.
2006-08-12 21:19:08 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes! And in some states there is a similar law to just what you are talking about. Like Montana - there is no accessory law. If you were there - if you knew it was happening. - it doesn't matter if you actually did the crime. Just knowing about it makes you guilty. And your tried for that crime. Be it murder right on down to vandalism. If you saw it and didn't stop it or didn't turn them in then you are just as guilty as the person who actually committed the crime. And for the most part i agree with this law.
2006-08-12 21:22:10 · answer #4 · answered by purple dove 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Eeee, the germans would have been shot on site for not saluting and supporting Hitler. So I can see why many of them would sit back and not do anything. Other than that, I feel that if you witness a crime happening it is your responsibilty to report it, even if you do so anonymously. I know that if something was happening to me or a loved one of mine, i would want soemone to help if they could, even if it was just making a phone call to the police.
And if by chance i came across a crime in progress, i would not hesitate to try to notify someone, its just the right thing to do.
2006-08-12 21:24:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you are able to stop the crime, or capable of reporting it, then you should be accountable.
If you report it and nothing is done, you have done all you can, or if passionate enough, then you should follow it through.
If someone else reports it and it is later found out that you were capable of reporting it, the law will hold you accountable
2006-08-12 21:22:39 · answer #6 · answered by Traveler 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's called being an accessory. The digressing you do, however, puts this in to the realm of philosophy and asks us to place ourselves in the role of the Germans who were terrified of Hitler. I am, therefore, confused about what your real question is.
2006-08-12 22:07:10 · answer #7 · answered by swarr2001 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If I gave you a gun, and you used it to kill someone, I would consider myself to be as guilty as you!
If you are aware of a crime that is costing people their lives, and you don’t report the crime, I would consider you to be as guilty as the people who were doing the killing, because had you reported it, further killings could have perhaps been avoided!
2006-08-12 21:39:01 · answer #8 · answered by I_C_Y_U_R 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Some times you have to pick your battles to get what you want. The same goes for law enforcement or lack thereof in a civilized society. When you want to catch someone doing something serious, you let them slide on small things.
2006-08-12 21:24:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, but it should still be bad.
The thing is that they have to do something to stop it, which they wouldn't have had to if nobody was committing an offence in the first place.
2006-08-12 21:24:29 · answer #10 · answered by shmux 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋