Is this a crime

[Xanadu84]

First off, a clarification: This is NOT a matter of a Good Samaritan Law, like the episode of Seinfeld. This is a matter of Duty to Rescue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

The shortest answer that can be given is, "Depends on where you live". There are plenty of varied laws covering aspects of this all over the world. In some places the answer is no, some places yes. In a whole lot of places the answer is, "Maybe" and really, its going to depend on your lawyer, the prosecution, the judge, and the most minute of details to figure out how the law actually gets enforced.

The common theme seems to be that you will only get in trouble if you could have saved their lives without any particular bother to you, and choose not to. So for the sake of your argument, check out the article and find your country or state. And for the sake of reality, you only have something to worry about if you are a TREMENDOUS dick.

 

[debossman21]

not a crime, but it could hurt you if its against your morals or something

 

[Aulleas123]

"if you happen across a stranger who is sinking in quicksand and you just leave him to die is that a crime"

No, depending on the country you live in, there are different defenses against charges. I would assume that many countries would say that you could make many claims to reason why you didn't act and there are no witnesses to say that there was a way for you to save that individual. It's the same thing as refusing to stop a mugging, sure it might be the right thing to do but it could also get you killed.

In addition, if the setting doesn't allow for you to do anything then you really shouldn't try. One factor is the presence of any long poles or boards, if these aren't around then you really shouldn't be trying to save them (short of screaming advice and fleeing to get help). Any victim of drowning shouldn't be saved through jumping in to the quicksand (you could get pulled in too). There are many reasons why someone who isn't trained should not go and try to save them.

 

[razer17]

No, but it would be a questionable thing to do.

A governing body should NEVER make laws prohibiting inaction, because responsibility of action lies upon the actor. A person who does not commit an action cannot be held guilty of inaction.

Surely you just described negligence, which is not doing something, or inaction, that then leads to ill consequences. Which definitely should be illegal.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, you do have to phone emergency services. It's not exactly specifically written, but the law says something like performing an action that a reasonable person would. Which means at the minimum getting help. Which in this day and age with millions of mobile phones really shouldn't be hard.

As for actually helping the guy, that's up to you. It wouldn't be illegal not to rescue him, and you probably shouldn't. No point both of you dying. Leave it to the pro's.

Recently, here in Britain, a policeman was fired from his job for risking his life saving someone who was drowning. He saved the girl, and he was unhurt, but he was fired for endangering himself. He was sacked for being a hero, basically. So as far as Britain goes, I can say for certain that you wouldn't have to save him.

 

[SillyBear]

Criminal negligence only applies when you have an appointed responsibility.

And appointed responsibility exists in all of us. It's called a duty of care.

People also have the capacity go to prison for not assisting others or alerting authorities after a car accident. It's happened before.

Drivers also quite often go to prison for being criminally negligent. Your duty of care does not magically change once you hop in a car. At least in the majority of the world it doesn't.

In North American there is absolutely no law that requires you to save a stranger's life. There is a universal moral duty to do so, but no a law.

I'm not from North America. I'm not talking about North America. What North America does is not an indication of anything other than North America. The person who asked the question is not from North America. So what's your point? I'm wrong because even though 90% of the first world and the thread starter exists in a state where this would be a crime, you're from the USA so you know best?

Also, not all of North America is how you say. Quite a few states in the USA do have legislation that supports a universal duty of care. I know Florida is one, and the test is based on foresee ability. Tennessee's is this:

Tennessee criminal negligence judged on:
the foreseeability of the harm or injury;
the possible magnitude of the potential harm or injury;
the importance or social value of the activity engaged in by the defendant;
the usefulness of the conduct to the defendant;
the feasibility of alternative conduct;
the costs and burdens associated with the alternative conduct;
the relative usefulness of the alternative conduct;
and the relative safety of the alternative conduct.

With enough evidence and a good legal team, there is no reason why someone couldn't go to prison over this. Even in the USA. Also, in: California, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin there is legislation that states you must attempt to alert rescue services in civil crisis.

It might be a rare occurrence in the USA, but there is legislation that could in theory convict someone over this.

But it's completely irrelevant anyway. I never even claimed to be talking about the USA and nothing I have said so far has been false. You've come in with your US blinders on and started insisting I'm wrong. The OP is from Malta, which is in the EU. So yes, the scenario he described is a crime.

 

[Krinku]

Technically not a crime, doesn't mean its good for your conscience...

 

[putowtin]

"it is common ground that under our law two persons can stand aside and watch a third jump to his death: there is no legal duty to rescue. Not all legal systems adopt that as their approach but for better or for worse that is the established position in English law"

that's the british legal standing, the only exceptions are
1: if you are a police officer, you are legally bound to help (even off duty)
2: the person is related to you in which case it can be seen as gross negligence manslaughter

but I know that in France and Germany it is an offence that can result (if charged and convicted) in a prison sentence.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

Choosing not to act isn't a crime. But it is a dick move.

 

[LeKiller]

I believe some countries have called the good simaritan law, if you see a crime or life threatening thing happening and you can do something about it, but you don't, then you're liable for that. Other then that it seems to be sort of 2nd degree murder since you clearly knew he would die, yet you did nothing about it.

 

[alittlepepper]

If you were aware of the situation you could at least be charged with manslaughter, provided it could be proven. So yes, it is a crime. You are required to act in some way, even if it's just calling emergency services to help. A failure to do so is gross negligence on your part, at least as the law sees it.
And frankly if I were a friend that you'd related that story to I'd kick you in the balls so hard you'd taste what you had for breakfast for leaving someone to die.

 

[notimeforlulz]

last sunday i was at a BBQ with some mates drinking and whatnot, and my brother presented us with this strange question

"if you happen across a stranger who is sinking in quicksand and you just leave him to die is that a crime"

we could not seem to decide if it was.

what do you guys think??

You're probably required by law to call emergency services. And you're not allowed to leave the scene till they arrive.

So whip out your phone and a beer, plus an armchair, and use all three.

 

[goldfalsebond]

what? of course not. Are people in a hostage situation criminals for not trying to stop the robbers/terrorists/douchebags?

 

[Jegsimmons]

your ass can be sued i know that. crime...no clue.

 

[The Lugz]

no, it is in no way a crime to watch someone die
heartless and cruel, but not a crime

suppose that person was dropped in quicksand by the Mafia or the illuminate and you rescued them and got on the front of a newspaper

what now.

i realize we are not writing a crime novel, but honestly you can never judge a specific action, as an absolute or in pure terms without contrast of all of it's component interactions
and by that in this case i mean
personal risk(s)
or
endangering others
( even the person you are rescuing, by playing an inept hero )
i could imagine families suing you for breaking Timmy's leg by tugging him out of a pile of rubble, or a crashed car ( real example, hundreds of people are now paralysed or suffer secondary injuries because of inept first aid, and rendered 'help' ) and fair play to them you should not be meddling in something that is not complicity your business as it's entirely possible a rescue service could do a better job, especially if someone is injured


personally, i'd just go call the police and let god sort them out, if you believe in those things

#edit#
oh, right quicksand.. yah if i had a stick handy i'd help them out of-course but if not then the same answer applies

 

[zehydra]

No, but it would be a questionable thing to do.

A governing body should NEVER make laws prohibiting inaction, because responsibility of action lies upon the actor. A person who does not commit an action cannot be held guilty of inaction.

Surely you just described negligence, which is not doing something, or inaction, that then leads to ill consequences. Which definitely should be illegal.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, you do have to phone emergency services. It's not exactly specifically written, but the law says something like performing an action that a reasonable person would. Which means at the minimum getting help. Which in this day and age with millions of mobile phones really shouldn't be hard.

As for actually helping the guy, that's up to you. It wouldn't be illegal not to rescue him, and you probably shouldn't. No point both of you dying. Leave it to the pro's.

Recently, here in Britain, a policeman was fired from his job for risking his life saving someone who was drowning. He saved the girl, and he was unhurt, but he was fired for endangering himself. He was sacked for being a hero, basically. So as far as Britain goes, I can say for certain that you wouldn't have to save him.

not doing something cannot lead to anything. Not taking action to prevent ill consequences as a crime, would put EVERYONE in prison.

 

[Thedayrecker]

Refer him to the last couple episodes of Seinfeld.

 

[Fleeker]

Parts of the US have a good Samaritan law which in this case would apply.

 

[Dogstile]

Depends, are there other people around?

This is exactly what I thought.

Can't charge you if nobody knows, plus the only witness is going to be unable to talk pretty soon ^_^

 

[renegade7]

Not necessarily, but someone could DEFINITELY make the case for it because your refusal to help directly resulted in the person's death.