Bystander Law Argument

1157 Words5 Pages
In discussions of the Bystander Law, one controversial issue with bystanders in our society today is if one person doesn't react and there is two other people with them, the other two won't react. For people who don’t know the definition of a bystander, it means a person who is present at an event or incident but doesn’t respond. Why follow someone else when you can be an individual? People who believe that we as individuals shouldn’t have the law, but the reason that people wouldn’t follow the law if we enforce it. On the other hand, those who believe that our own selves should have the law contend that there should be consequences. My own view is we should have the law, but only for serious situations. For the purpose of this discussion, civil rights attorney’s, Gloria Allred, and Lisa Bloom in their persuasive argument “If Decency Doesn’t, Law Should Make Us Samaritans,” argues that if any, good is to come of the Princess Diana tragedy and the depraved image of people trying to move a buck off of the dying, it should be a call to change U.S. law to require each of us to render at least minimal assistance, where possible, to those at risk of suffering grievous injury or death. They support their claim by defining U.S.A. Law who is at risk of injury or death. Paragraph 3 states “For example, it is not too…show more content…
If only one or two had ignored the victim, we might be able to understand their inaction. But when thirty-eight people, or eleven people, or hundreds of people fail to help, we become disturbed. Actually, this fact that shocks us so much is itself the clue to understanding these cases. If each member of a group of bystanders is aware that other people are also present, he will be less likely to notice the emergency, less likely to decide that it is an emergency,and less likely to act even if he thinks there is an emergency. (When Will People Help in a
Open Document