Seinfeld's Good Samaritan Law Now Reality?

e3m4n writes "The fictitious 'good samaritan' law from the final episode of Seinfeld (the one that landed them in jail for a year) appears to be headed toward reality for California residents after the house passed this bill. There are some differences, such as direct action is not required, but the concept of guilt by association for not doing the right thing is still on the face of the bill."

Comments

No

[scotch]

I didn't have to read very far to find out that no, the law is not a reality.  Thanks, slashdot!

Re:No

[Cryacin]

It's just a test to see who reads the article before sharing their enlightened opinion.

It's like that instruction test in school:
1. Read all of the instructions.
2. Clap your hands.
3. Shout out that you are at step 3.
4. Jump up and down.
5. Do not perform steps 2-4
6. Finish test

Re:No

[mmalove]

I always hated these, because to me it makes no sense to read but not do steps 1-4, and then to read and execute step 5 or 6. Therefore after reading them, you SHOULD go back and start executing the steps in order, 2-4 occur before they are negated, the 5 tells you to stop, and then you finish.

Of course, I get the point of the test. But it's like some guy on the internet playing teacher correcting your spelling while making god awful grammatical errors.

In conclusion, pedantic lessons suck.

Re:No

[DesScorp]

It's just a test to see who reads the article before sharing their enlightened opinion.

Honestly, would it really have surprised anyone if it was true? California seems bent on a destroying itself with stupidity, to the extent that many of the smart and talented people are getting out of Dodge, so to speak. The reason why surrounding states have been more competitive politically this past decade (after mostly being solid GOP) is the sheer number of Californians getting the hell out of their state. Everything from California... costs, product liability laws, fuel standards, etc, is stricter and more expensive than most of the country. Buy a mouse or keyboard, and many of them will have a tag on it warning you not to do something stupid, like eat the cord. The small print explains that this little reminder was brought to you via a product safety lawsuit in California.

California, with it's bust-ass budget and spiraling social program costs is a preview of what might happen to the rest of the country. They're still $21 billion in the hole, and yet now they want to enact a statewide universal health care program, with costs upwards of $200 Billion over the next decade?

Again, when you hear something ridiculous about California... true or not... does it really surprise you?

Re:No

[Rophuine]

I'm not so sure this law is 'stupidity'. It only applies to violent crime, and it only requires that the witness report it, not intervene, not even make a scene. Just make a discreet phone call. I'd like to see more debate before labeling this a 'bad' law.

That's not to say the rest of your rant doesn't ring true, though.

Re:No

[gd2shoe]

What he didn't state were the instructions for those tests. The instructions specifically state to read every question before answering any of them. It's not a test, but a lesson in reading and following the instructions. As such, I think it has great value.

Re:No

[L4t3r4lu5]

Right, so you read the questions through while following no instructions. That means you do not follow instruction 5, start the test from the beginning, and perform tasks 2 to 4, as you have not performed the action of instruction 5. Acting upon instruction 5 negates instruction 1, as you are no longer reading but have started acting upon the instructions.

I had this argument with my science teacher. She firstly took me out of the science lesson for being disruptive (I was quite adamant I was right) so I walked down to the Head of Science and explained the situation. He made the teacher apologise to me.

Unfortunately, this course of action did not get me any tail.

Re:No

[delinear]

Especially if you live in an area where gang related violence is high, the perpetrators know who you are, they know you're the only witness, and they have lots of friends who can make sure your family suffer if you ever testify. You're right, I can't see a single problem with criminalising people who fail to report crimes.

Re:No

[demonlapin]

You were trying to prove your point, to prove your point.

So was his teacher. Don't give a dumb test to smart kids and then be surprised when they call you on it.

Re:No

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Not correct -

Consider the following:

1. Read all of the instructions.
2. Clap your hands.
3. Shout out that you are at step 3.
4. Jump up and down.
5. REPEAT steps 2, 4
6. Finish test

And now consider the original:

1. Read all of the instructions.
2. Clap your hands.
3. Shout out that you are at step 3.
4. Jump up and down.
5. Do not perform steps 2-4
6. Finish test

So, at step 5... do anything at all (including nothing) that isn't steps 2-4. Done.

Nowhere does Step5 claim to have scope over the entirety of the process; in fact, giving step5 a global scope flatly contradicts the scope YOU give to the other steps. You stop clapping at the end of 2, you stop shouting at the end of 3, jumping at the end of 4... but 5, well, let's treat that action differently.

Re:No

[amoeba1911]

1. Jump off a cliff.
2. Don't do step 1.
3. Do the opposite of step 2.
4. Don't do step 3.
5. Don't do step 5.
6. Do step 5.
7. Skip step 2 and 5.
8. Perform the steps in reverse order.
9. Do step 4.
10. We're just fucking with you, throw the test out.
11. No we're not, finish the test.
12. Clap your hands if you reached this step.
13. Don't clap your hands at any point during this test.
14. There will be cake.
15. The cake is a lie.

Re:No

[Rhaban]

the first instruction is to read all the insctruction: while you are executing it, you read the other but don't execute them.
When you finish reading everything, you finish executing instruction 1, and can safely go on and execute instruction 2.

Re:No

[hduff]

As a teacher, may I say, I would have considered stapling your lips shut.

Your science teacher most likely knew you were right.

Knowing the student was right, a competent teacher would never engage in such an abuse of authority and abuse of a child in giving the "test" in the first place. Any teacher with power and control issues should consider a career change and leave the students alone.

Re:No

[Deadplant]

You were trying to prove your point, to prove your point.

Making a purely academic objection to a test in school?!?!? the audacity! beat that student down.

Re:No

[Reziac]

I prefer this variant:

PRESS TO TEST

[click]

RELEASE TO DETONATE

Politician's "thinking"

[name*censored*]

Do stupid laws and frivolous lawsuits make you too afraid to help someone in trouble? No problem, we'll just pass another ill-thought law! What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Politician's "thinking"

[sjames]

Actually, the stupid lawsuits that follow helping people are countered by laws requiring you to render assistance. You can't be sued for obeying the law. Most such laws have a built in "out" to them like "if you believe you may do so safely". The only downside is that such laws are dirty hacks to paper over the real problem of a sue crazy society.

Re:Politician's "thinking"

[GiveBenADollar]

This is a bad idea. In emergency response training we had a lengthy discussion about this. When people witness a crime or even a heart attack they often don't respond because they expect someone else to have already called 911 or that someone else will be able to help the person better. You can have a man choking in a restaurant and 10 CPR/Heimlich trained people who all stand around doing nothing. If you don't realize that this is a natural reaction then you can't counter it if the time comes.

On the other side of the coin, if you do render assistance and you are not trained you can be sued. For example, if you assist in a car accident and drag someone from the wreckage who is later diagnosed with spinal injuries you could be sued for causing those injuries unless you can prove that they were in imminent danger and you are trained to move someone with spinal injuries.

Good Samaritan laws are meant to protect first responders, but against a good lawyer you can still lose.

Re:Politician's "thinking"

[Le Marteau]

That is the stupidest fucking thing I have read all day. And I just got done reading newspaper bulletin boards, so that's quite an accomplishment.

Re:Politician's "thinking"

[HeronBlademaster]

Its intent is obviously to criminalize witnesses who do not intervene... and a poorly-thought-out law it is.

No, not at all. It's intent is to criminalize failure to report crimes you witness, not failure to intervene in crimes you witness.

There's a very large difference.

(My intent is not to defend the proposed law, only to correct your misinformation.)

Re:Politician's "thinking"

[mikael_j]

Actually, 20 people calling at the same time may very well be needed, if one person calls the operator may just decide that they're full of shit or that it's just one person overreacting, I once called 112, the swedish equivalent of 911, after finding a passed out beaten up and drunk man in a ditch, they essentially told me "no ambulances are available right now, take care of him yourself", I called them three more times before they finally relented and decided to send a police car to take the guy to the hospital, took the police about two minutes to get there which was pretty impressive considering I had been told in previous calls that all police units and ambulances were in a neighboring town some 25 km away due to a large number of festival-related disturbances*.

* This touches on another issue I have with emergency operators, if you only have one "spare" unit don't tell me there are no units in town, you don't think I'll figure out that you were lying to me once you realize I'm calling about a real emergency?

/Mikael

A bit late?

[SlothDead]

I'm surprised that the USA does not already have a bill like this. In other countries (e.g. Germany) helping people in need is mandatory. You are also encouraged to give CPR and if you fail at it and make it worse you are not charged (otherwise people would be too scared of screwingn up and never administer CPR at all).

Re:A bit late?

[BitZtream]

Its not a federal law in the US, but I know certain states require you to give help in life threatening situations if you are capable of doing so.

CPR is a perfect example. In Florida for instance, if someone dies in front of you and CPR had a good chance of saving them, don't let anyone find out you are CPR certified (which every highschool student is at some point) as you will be punished.

I really don't have a problem with it. Too many people will stand by and watch someone die or get mugged and do nothing to help, not even bother to call the cops, but they'll take pictures on their phones. And yes, I've seen that happen, I have pictures! Mind you, my friend was calling the cops while I was snapping pictures of it.

On that same note, let something happen to one of my loved ones while you stand by and watch and you better prey to whatever god you worship that I don't find out. I have no problem with revenge against useless fucks too lazy to do anything to help others. No, I don't expect an unarmed person to go after some guy with a knife or gun, but I do expect an appropriate response such as calling for help or calling a doctor. Not everybody is a hero, but everyone SHOULD be a responsible citizen.

Re:A bit late?

[Totenglocke]

Not everybody is a hero, but everyone SHOULD be a responsible citizen.

And that's the crux of the matter. The fact that someone SHOULD do something does not mean that anyone (not even the government) has the right to FORCE them to do something.

Re:A bit late?

[smashr]

Uhm, what do you think governments are for then?

1) Defend the borders & provide for basic public saftey.
2) Deliver the mail
3) Build the roads
4) _Maybe_ provide public education
5) Collect enough tax renevue to do ONLY the above.

And thats it.

Re:A bit late?

[Rophuine]

In Australia we have a shield law for good samaritans. There are three caveats required to invoke the shield law:
1. You must be acting reasonably (although this is to be interpreted in the favor of the good samaritan if in doubt).
2. You must not act without permission, although you may assume you have permission if the victim is unable to give it.
3. You must not be performing something for which you are professionally trained and the act you are seeking shielding from is something for which you could be held liable for under that training (eg. doctor committing mal-practice).

The first test came when a good samaritan ripped a lady's top off to be able to perform CPR (she had had a heart attack and collapsed on the street, and her bra was impeding his effort). She sued him for exposing her in public, and the shield law meant the case couldn't even be heard. IANAL but I understand from my first aid instructor that you are legally shielded against all possible consequences; criminal, civil, procedural, and anything else you can think of.

I understand we also have specific crimes along the lines of "Indifference" and "Aggravated Indifference" which mean you can be held criminally liable for not helping, but a paramedic I know tells me that this is based on your level of training: an average person is expected to call 000 (our 911 equivalent), while a doctor is expected to stop and lend full medical assistance, and a soldier would be expected to intervene physically if the odds meant his own safety wouldn't be compromised. He (the paramedic) said that he was unofficially instructed to GTFO if he ever witnesses an accident, because legally he MUST stop and render medical assistance, but he could be held liable for screwing up first aid and his professional indemnity insurance wouldn't cover him (as the incident wasn't "on the job"). IOW it's better if he was just "never there".

Did the submitter do their research at all?

[JoshuaZ]

"Good Samaritan" laws in the sense of Seinfeld already exist in many jurisdictions. It is called a "duty to rescue" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue. Good Samaritan laws also exist, but in legal parlance that means something different, namely protection from liability of people trying to rescue or assist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law. The California law is a variant duty to rescue. This isn't anything new. Seinfeld didn't do their research and apparently neither did the submitter of this post or the editors.

When girls can be raped in public with no 911 call

[rahvin112]

This is the result of more than 20 people watching a minor (15) year old girl being gang raped during a school dance and not a single one calling 911 to report it. Unfortunately a law like this needs to be enacted so that such people can be punished. It's a shame that such basic morality is lacking in society these days but it's come to this point. We have to legislate that if someone is so devoid of such basic morality, that they can't call the police when witnessing a gang rape, that we need to start putting people in jail for not doing such basic acts of humanity, so that there is at least a threat of jail to inspire people to do the right thing if their conscious is devoid of inspiration to do so voluntarily.

Re:When girls can be raped in public with no 911 c

[JoshuaZ]

Why should such people be punished? There's a lot of evidence that they are acting out of normal and fairly standard psychological patterns. Humans are less likely to help in large groups. This is known as the bystander effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect. People have tested this in many different contexts, these include having people pretending to have heart attacks, as well as more controlled lab settings. One good example test involved a lab setting where people were supposed to be answering a set of questions, then the experimenter would go out of the room and something loud and bad would happen to the experimenter who would cry out for help. The key issue is that all but one of the people in the room were actually actors. The actors all just kept taking the test. The one almost never helps. This works with as few as one actor and one real person. But if there is a single individual and no actors, more often than not, they will help. And if one of the actors gets up to help, then the person generally will also. You shouldn't punish people for following their basic herd instincts as righteous and moral as it might make you feel.

Re:When girls can be raped in public with no 911 c

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You shouldn't punish people for following their basic herd instincts as righteous and moral as it might make you feel.

Then let's make gangrape legal too, shall we ? Talk about your basic herd instinct.

The whole point of morality, religion, and by extension laws and such is that we can do better than these stupid instincts. Modern society (or any city with more than 50 people) would be utterly impossible without actively punishing people for following their instincts.

Is-ought problem

[SpeedyDX]

Just because it is the case that the bystander effect is normal doesn't mean it ought to be the case that it is normal. This is a very common logical fallacy in moral philosophy called the is-ought problem as it was well articulated by David Hume. The gist of it is that you cannot take descriptive statements as premises and come to a prescriptive conclusion.

The reason why there are such laws is because we feel that we should have a moral responsibility to help those who are in immediate life-threatening danger when we are in a position to help them without (too much) personal sacrifice.

Re:When girls can be raped in public with no 911 c

[pla]

Then let's make gangrape legal too, shall we ? Talk about your basic herd instinct.

Sorry, but a HUGE difference exists between actively committing a violent crime, and choosing not to report the same.

Try applying this to situations you might disagree with. Failure to report your friend smoking weed? Failure to report your mother speeding? Failure to report your uncle cheating just a bit on his taxes? Failure to report your coworker for circumventing the DMCA to do what your mutual boss ordered?

This amounts to the worst of slippery slopes. Even in the best of applications, someone might simply not have noticed (I, for one, get very disoriented in large social gatherings, and yes, you probably could rape someone in front of me without my noticing). And in the worst, this amounts to criminalizing a refusal to obey potentially intolerable laws (Failure to report anyone who violates the "We love George Bush" law).

5th Amendment

[gcnaddict]

This can easily be seen as a violation of the 5th amendment. This would force anyone who doesn't report a crime they might or might not have been involved in to face charges for not reporting the crime unless they report the crime and, in turn, incriminate themselves. IANYAL

Re:Oblig

[LoverOfJoy]

One armed fat guy and your spree is over.

Are they more dangerous than fat guys with two arms?

Re:Oblig

[SpinyManiac]

One armed fat guy and your spree is over.

Are they more dangerous than fat guys with two arms?

Of course they're more dangerous, with less weight they can run faster.

Californians, False Accusations are coming to you!

[flajann]

All of my life I've had to deal with people falsely accusing me of just about everything you can imagine. And it was always due to paranoia. It finally took its toll in causing me to miss out on millions of dollars and the destruction of my marriage.

And this was without a "Good Samaritan Law".

People are inherently stupid. They see things that simply aren't there. They perceive things though their own past traumas and the like. If they get a silly notion in their heads, sometimes all logic is thrown out if the silly notion really bugs them. Such simple logic as "did I really see this guy do anything?

The "Good Samaritan Law" may have "good intentions", but we all know what the "road to Hell" is paved with!

I have to say, I am now glad I don't live in California, which up till now was looking good as a state I might want to live in. Now, "no way in hell" are the words that come to mind.

Gotta love our culture of hyper-paranoia. A child-abuser behind every door, a terrorist in ever-other plane seat, and now this.

I do have one solution to this mess: expatriation. Even China is beginning to look like a better option.

Unintended consequences

[russotto]

Suppose you witness a crime, but for various reasons (like wanting to continue breathing) you don't want to report it or testify about it. Suppose further the cops figure out you were a witness, and you're subpoena'd and ordered to testify. Since you didn't report the crime, and not doing so is a crime, you can now simply take the fifth and not testify!

Sounds Unconstitutional to me ...

[dougmc]

The right to remain silent (which comes from the fifth amendment) includes the right to not talk to police. About anything, really. And since nobody can really know ALL the laws, simply reporting an observed crime to the police could very well incriminate you in some crime, either the crime you're reporting or something else (watching a cock fight? illegal. Being out after curfew? Illegal. Who knows what laws you might have violated simply by being there, and when you report this crime, you're telling them that you were there.) For more on this -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

As overbearing as it seems...

[cyn1c77]

It has to make you think about what kind of society are we living in today that legislators would even have to consider putting forward a law like this.

Let's review: Twenty teenagers watched the gangrape of a 16-year-old girl outside a high school without doing ANYTHING and your primary concern is a fucking good samaritan law eroding your freedom?

I am a little more worried about the how those spectators will be the future of America.

And if you could, in any way, justify not reporting a violent crime in action (even anonymously), you have some serious issues. That's the problem nowdays, we've been reduced to sheep who don't want to get our hoofs dirty, so we just watch and wait for someone else to fix the problem.