{"id":1025,"date":"2011-10-21T13:21:58","date_gmt":"2011-10-21T17:21:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www3.law.harvard.edu\/journals\/hlpr\/?p=1025"},"modified":"2015-10-02T15:26:22","modified_gmt":"2015-10-02T15:26:22","slug":"can-and-should-the-law-compel-compassion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/2011\/10\/21\/can-and-should-the-law-compel-compassion\/","title":{"rendered":"Can (and Should) the Law Compel Compassion?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sushila Rao<\/em>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Video footage depicting a two-year old girl in China being run over twice by the same mini-van driver, and then once again by a light truck \u2013 while as many as 18 passersby ignored her plight \u2013 has sparked off the latest round of moral outcry and introspective reflection on modern societies\u2019 lack of \u00a0a sense of community. It bears emphasis that such chilling tales of apathy regularly surface across the world, including in America (remember\u00a0Kitty Genovese<\/a>?). This situation encapsulates a universal quandary: What role can the law play in structuring a more compassionate society?\u00a0 The focus here is not on cases of medical or emergency personnel like firefighters, but on the everyday \u201ccitizen-hero-rescuer,\u201d who bears no special relationship to victim apart from being a witness to his\/her peril.<\/p>\n

The most common solution being proffered in the blogosphere is for China to enact a \u201cGood Samaritan\u201d law. These claims obfuscate the basic fact that \u201cGood Samaritan\u201d laws come in different shapes and sizes, and reflect fundamentally disparate policy objectives and outcomes.\u00a0<\/span>In order for this round of soul-searching to be productive and hopefully conclusive, participants must clarify the parameters of the discourse, and understand the nuances of different positions along the spectrum of Good Samaritan law\u2014so that each society may determine for itself the optimal balance to be struck between respect for autonomy and institutionalized disapproval of apathy.<\/p>\n

The majority of people appalled by the onlookers\u2019 indifference and calling for the law to \u201cstop the heartlessness\u201d are probably envisaging a system akin to the \u201cduty of rescue\u201d that is codified in certain civil law countries such as France and Germany. So, for instance, French law imposes an affirmative duty on everyone to rescue an individual in peril, if this can be done without danger to the potential rescuer. Article 62 of the French Penal Code penalizes any person who \u201cwillfully fails to render or to obtain assistance to an endangered person\u201d when possible without danger to himself or others.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the Anglo-American rule is illustrated by this well-known hypothetical: \u201cA number of people who stand round a shallow pond in which a child is drowning, and let it drown without taking the trouble to ascertain the depth of the pond, are, no doubt, shameful cowards, but they can hardly be said to have killed the child.\u201d (Cited on Page e 3<\/a>.) Exceptions exist \u2013 for instance, where a \u201cspecial relationship\u201d exists, either because of contract or the inherently personal nature of the relationship\u00a0 (such as between parents and children or spouses).\u00a0Accordingly, Good Samaritan laws in these common law jurisdictions normally connote laws that seek to protect those who volitionally\u00a0choose\u00a0<\/em>to intervene and tend to injured or sick victims. These measures aim at reducing bystanders\u2019 hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death.<\/p>\n

Weighty arguments of policy can be adduced on either side of the spectrum. While the French rule will arguably be more stringent in reducing incentives for odious indifference, the Anglo-American rule is shored up by more than just enhanced sensitivity to individual autonomy. For instance, commentators point out that a duty-to-rescue rule may hinder police efforts to apprehend criminals. So, if failing to act was a criminal offense, the thirty-eight witnesses in the Kitty Genovese rape-cum-murder case might never have come forward to identify Genovese\u2019s attacker after he was apprehended, for fear of being themselves prosecuted for not intervening. Needless to say, there are also substantial arguments from a slippery slope perspective against permitting penalties on the basis of perceived moral disapproval.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sushila Rao\u00a0 Video footage depicting a two-year old girl in China being run over twice by the same mini-van driver, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1025","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZQka-gx","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1025","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1025"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1025\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1025"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1025"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1025"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}