Culpability
0
Nekohime wrote...
SamRavster wrote...
[font=Verdana][color=green]Also, there's such a thing called taking on the duty of care. This would happen where, and let's go back to the drowning child, a person attempts to save the child. By attempting to save the child, a duty of care has been established. However, and this area of law makes me laugh, if the person were to fail to save the child and the child dies, the person becomes liable for that death. Now, who's more culpable? The person who tried to save the child, or the person who just let him drown? Legally, the first person, but morally, surely the second person?
So, if you're in England and Wales, and you see a person drowning in a pond, let them drown if you don't want the risk of being guilty of homicide. If you want to be a hero with no reward, feel free to jump in.
There are no Good Samaritan laws in England and Wales? I find that odd.
[font=Verdana][color=green]Trust me...this has been battled over the past few decades. It is simply out of place in our society and way of thinking. I mean, what would you do if you saw someone drowning? You'd leap in and try and help them.
But, there's obviously a strong argument in favour of having no Good Samaritan laws; that being that, without this strict approach being in place, the law won't be safeguarding people's personal safety. Let's face it, it's one of the reasons why the law is here in the first place. Not only that but, when in a situation where help is needed, it won't encourage people to contact the emergency services, who are trained to deal with these types of situations.
From what I know, there isn't much political obligation to deal with this mess once and for all, and will continued to be argued over for many more years.
0
Has anyone ever watched "The Incredibles"? In the beginning, Mr.Incredible saves a man attempting suicide by jumping off a building. The man then sues Mr.Incredible because he -Didn't- want to be saved. I say it depends on the situation.
-guy attempting suicide, leave him alone. (its not your fault)
-guy getting mugged, help. (You're still not responsible for what happened, but if you don't at least call the police, you'd probably feel like shit later on.)
-guy attempting suicide, leave him alone. (its not your fault)
-guy getting mugged, help. (You're still not responsible for what happened, but if you don't at least call the police, you'd probably feel like shit later on.)
0
I've noticed a fair amount of people saying "Yes! You're responsible" without actually explaining their position.
Personally it depends on the situation. I've read more than enough court cases of people getting sued for being a Good Samaritan.
It's people who sue well meaning citizens that discourage anyone from doing anything except be onlookers or taping it on their phone to upload to youbook, myface or something to that effect.
No, I'll ring the emergency services but I'm not going to play hero and have some street thugs come after me or risk being sued. The feeling of doing good is great but it won't feed you or heal a stab wound.
Personally it depends on the situation. I've read more than enough court cases of people getting sued for being a Good Samaritan.
It's people who sue well meaning citizens that discourage anyone from doing anything except be onlookers or taping it on their phone to upload to youbook, myface or something to that effect.
No, I'll ring the emergency services but I'm not going to play hero and have some street thugs come after me or risk being sued. The feeling of doing good is great but it won't feed you or heal a stab wound.
0
tswarthog
The Iconoclast
I think the question at hand has far to great of a range to answer yes/no. It would truly depend on the situation at hand. In some cases it would be stupid to try and assist even if you "could" in others you would be completely responsible for the persons death.
0
Kind of a tough question. It's not like your obligated to help them, but it's also in our human nature to help our own kind when it is needed.
0
jmason
Curious and Wondering
Depending on the circumstances, danger, and people involved, nope. I'm not responsible, I'm not obligated anyway, and it's still my choice if I should help or not.
0
Mr.Shaggnificent wrote...
If there is a person in distress, imminent danger, or peril, and you have the means/capasity to help them but do nothing, are you responable for their death?I would do everything in my power to help them. I would then probably be sued by the person or family of the person I helped. It would be logical to not help them, and remove yourself from the situation. I don't think I could just standby while someone is hurt.
0
The tone of the question was: IF YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY/MEANS TO HELP which intimates that you do not sacrifice yourself nor fail to save. There was nothing said about being sued for saving either. Simply your thoughts about omission and possible culpability concerning it.
0
opanihuya wrote...
There was nothing said about being sued for saving either.I read about it all the time, opanihuya. I'll try to find an article for you, but it's not a far fetched chain of thought.
0
del wrote...
opanihuya wrote...
There was nothing said about being sued for saving either.I read about it all the time, opanihuya. I'll try to find an article for you, but it's not a far fetched chain of thought.
I would ask you to count such cases and compare the number with world population.
0
SamRavster wrote...
[font=Verdana][color=green]No, you're not. Back to the law...yay~According to the English Legal System, a person cannot be guilty of murder by omission. Omission is, basically, when the defendant fails to do something, rather than doing something which causes the crime. Omissions can work for other crimes i.e. assault, but it will never work for more serious crimes. Why? Because no-one should be legally obliged to do something to help someone else.
However, there are always exceptions to this strict rules.
Take, for example, a father and his child. If his son starts to drown in a pond, and no-one -including the father- does anything to help him and he dies, the father is responsible for the death and no-one else. This is because the father owes his son a duty of care. By failing to save his son, he breached the duty, which resulted in the sons death. He's guilty.
This duty of care can also be applied to other situations. For example, a life guard at a swimming pool, or a doctor and his patient, but these involve technicalities.
Also, there's such a thing called taking on the duty of care. This would happen where, and let's go back to the drowning child, a person attempts to save the child. By attempting to save the child, a duty of care has been established. However, and this area of law makes me laugh, if the person were to fail to save the child and the child dies, the person becomes liable for that death. Now, who's more culpable? The person who tried to save the child, or the person who just let him drown? Legally, the first person, but morally, surely the second person?
So, if you're in England and Wales, and you see a person drowning in a pond, let them drown if you don't want the risk of being guilty of homicide. If you want to be a hero with no reward, feel free to jump in.
i knew it aplied to CPR situations, but the drowning child bit seems a excessive.