2008 Woodie Awards
RE: "Blood on their hands," 4/21
Scott Peterson | Math instructor
Issue date: 4/28/08 Section: Letters to the editor
Imagine Stacy Lane walking down a dark street one night, and she sees a large man attacking another man with a knife.
Imagine now the dilemma she faces, because in her world, "any person witnessing a crime against another human being, and who does nothing to intervene should without a doubt be made to accept responsibility for the crime having been carried out." Her dilemma is to intervene, and potentially be killed, or not intervene, and be morally and legally responsible for the crime.
The truth is that there is no legal culpability for a person witnessing a crime, nor is there necessarily moral culpability. Each situation calls for individuals to make value judgments. In the De Anza case, one can make the case for moral culpability, but absent many more facts, establishing legal culpability of "witnesses" is a far more gray area than Ms. Lane would have you believe.
But on the broader scale, her assertion that "those with any association to the crime should be held legally and personally accountable for their actions" is not only absurd, it would lead to an overload of our legal system, and would put honest citizens in legal jeopardy in situations that were beyond their control.
It is nice to have concern for your fellow human beings, but allowing that concern to propose ridiculous standards for conduct or culpability helps no one. It is always a good thing to be able to discuss moral dilemmas and challenge people to be better. It is another thing altogether to suggest simplistic responsibilities to very complex legal issues.
Imagine now the dilemma she faces, because in her world, "any person witnessing a crime against another human being, and who does nothing to intervene should without a doubt be made to accept responsibility for the crime having been carried out." Her dilemma is to intervene, and potentially be killed, or not intervene, and be morally and legally responsible for the crime.
The truth is that there is no legal culpability for a person witnessing a crime, nor is there necessarily moral culpability. Each situation calls for individuals to make value judgments. In the De Anza case, one can make the case for moral culpability, but absent many more facts, establishing legal culpability of "witnesses" is a far more gray area than Ms. Lane would have you believe.
But on the broader scale, her assertion that "those with any association to the crime should be held legally and personally accountable for their actions" is not only absurd, it would lead to an overload of our legal system, and would put honest citizens in legal jeopardy in situations that were beyond their control.
It is nice to have concern for your fellow human beings, but allowing that concern to propose ridiculous standards for conduct or culpability helps no one. It is always a good thing to be able to discuss moral dilemmas and challenge people to be better. It is another thing altogether to suggest simplistic responsibilities to very complex legal issues.
Be the first to comment on this story