The failure to act to save a life is not a criminal offence...?

Question

In the case of Pope v. US, a friend of the mother of baby stood by as the mother, who was disturbed by religious fanaticism, beat her baby. after the beating, the friend took the mother to church and returned to her home with her where the baby was found dead.

In the US , there is no legal duty to rescue another from harm... the good samaritan law only protects rescuers from prosecution for harmful consequences from good faith actions.

BUT ,, the friend could have done the minimum effort of calling the police or speaking out to discourage the mom. Shouldn't we have a duty to do something that requires minimal effort relative to the seriousness of harm???. I would agree we don't have a duty to prevent the harm by putting ourselves in danger.... BUT shouldn't we at least have a duty to call police if we witness another in danger of bodily injury.

What is the legal reasoning for not criminalizing a failure to act with minimum duty of care???

THE QUESTION IS WHY IS THERE NO LEGAL DUTY TO ACT TO RESCUE.. IF THE ACT LIKE CALLING THE POLICE IS SO MINIMAL RELATIVE TO THE HARM OF DEATH OR BODILY INJURY??

Answer 1

Granted, this friend was absolute scum for not calling the authorities, and should be fully investigated to see if she helped the killer commit or cover up her crime in any way. But we can't start punishing people for not wanting to play cop. There are many situations where people are afraid of reporting violent criminals because they fear retaliation from them or are being controlled by them in some way. Should we also prosecute a homeowner for not wanting to report violent and armed drug-dealing neighbors of his? Exactly where would you draw the line?

Here in the U.S., there is a legal tradition that you can only be punished for personally committing a positive or affirmative act, and you can't go to jail if you haven't done anything. There is nothing in the law that allows the government to compel involuntary performance from a citizen, and you cannot be held responsible for the crimes of another adult. If the child had been legally placed in that friend's care or custody and she allowed the mother to beat him, then it would be a different story as she would have specifically accepted responsibility for the child's welfare. But merely failing to do the right thing is only a general moral issue and cannot be legislated.

Answer 2

The case was only an application of the common-law rule: if there is no duty, there can be no liability. In fact, most states have made several exceptions to this rule (child and elder abuse are the most common, but only for "mandated reporters"). Once you change the rule, you have to define when it applies, and that can get very subjective very fast. Is slapping a 4 year old on the rear for misbehaving in a store "child abuse?" If I am opposed to any physical punishment, of course. Is that what you want? Or do we just accept your personal criteria and apply them to all of us?

Answer 3

Nobody should be denied a life saving organ. Lets say this person committed the worst of sins. Would denying him his right to live correct the previous mistakes he's done. No. Would it stop sins from happening? No. Because other people would still sin.

Answer 4

Yes I do agree on your statement that we have a duty to do something that requires minimal effort relative to the seriousness of harm to others, this is strictly debatable. That saying in the bible "AM I MY BROTHER'S KEEPER'S?" In theory that is, we are bound to give assistant to other's who needs them but what if it would cost our life, do we still do it? Of course, others will refuse the offer because they too have their own life to live for their own love ones back home.

That is true there is no legal duty to rescue others from harm because we are not SUPERMAN or any other hero's in the comic books we read that help the universe if it is in trouble. We are just human, for others help is normal to them to give assistant and a helping hand but to give one's life for another is another story. So the law cannot prosecute one person for being adamant in giving help or escape in the course of the crime without giving any assistant, he is not duty bound to the rescue of another, and the law cannot prosecute him/her for that. That covers the private lives we live that we donot care or give a damn about others.

Answer 5

Because in America we have freedom of choice.
If I see you get shot why should I call the cops I don't know you I don't care.
People should mind their own business.