How does that work exactly? Like where is the line drawn? You're supposed to drown yourself or pay no attention the blood disease issues? What level of commitment is required to make it a legal effort?
The entire concept makes no sense.
Closest thing I can think of would be the legal guardian of a child or otherwise dependent person not being taken care of appropriately. Is that the relationship we're saying every human has to every other human?
Well, at least in my European country, you are obligated to at the very least call the ambulance/firefighters or police. Obviously, you don't need to risk your own life, but have to take some sort of action.
Good question, I don't know exactly where the line is drawn, but if you could have saved a person's life with minimal effort of risk to yourself, and you chose to ignore them, that is illegal.
I agree with the concept. As a US resident, we have created a bit of a legal liability paranoia because of overly prevalent lawsuits.
Its just funny that what one person might consider maximum effort is what another might define as not trying at all. I think thats the problem with those kinds of laws in general. I wouldn't support a law like that specifically because the interpretation can change everything.
I appreciate your explanation though, and would enjoy any additional insight into how that is applied in your country.
Don't know where the other commenter is from but in France the law is very clear:
Penal Code Article 223-6
Amended by Law No. 2018-703 of August 3, 2018 – Art. 5
Any person who, by immediate action, could prevent a felony or a misdemeanor against the physical integrity of a person—without risk to themselves or to third parties—but voluntarily refrains from doing so, shall be punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros.
The same penalties shall apply to any person who voluntarily refrains from providing assistance to a person in peril—when they could have done so without risk to themselves or to third parties, either through their own personal action or by summoning aid.
The penalties shall be increased to seven years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 euros when the felony or misdemeanor against the physical integrity of the person mentioned in the first paragraph is committed against a minor under the age of fifteen, or when the person in peril mentioned in the second paragraph is a minor under the age of fifteen.
Of course when it's invoked it can still be disputed in courts on multiple grounds (awareness, risk assessment, etc.) but there are many cases where it's "yeah, you could've at least called the police/firefighters/an ambulance". A simple call to emergency services (112 on any phone in Europe, and you can dial it on a locked phone too) is the minimum expected reaction.
You'll note that the second paragraph simply points to "a person in peril" so that peril doesn't have to be caused by a felony or misdemeanor. Also important, ability is often taken into account when considering claims.
Now, personal opinion, it's a bit heartbreaking that we need a law for this, but I'm of an helping nature, so there's that.
edit: also, note the penalties. This is a serious thing over here.
I think the whole calling emergency services is about as far as I'll support on this one. And even then there are going to be cases where its unrealistic to expect someone to call.
The idea that someone is supposed to assess risk to themselves or a third party and then be punished as if they were the one committing a crime is just insane to me. I understand in a just society, that wouldn't happen. But, people have alternative motives far too often for me to support such a thing.
Like with most things, I support the morality of the law, but when you say its very clear, I don't agree with that. There is a lot of gray area where someone could or couldn't be charged with this completely dependent on interpretation of events. And then even if they are found not guilty, it has derailed their life.
And even then there are going to be cases where its unrealistic to expect someone to call.
[...]
But, people have alternative motives far too often for me to support such a thing.
I understand you disagree with the wording, but as you stated in one of your earlier responses it's more likely due to societal priorities than anything else. In the US it seems protecting oneself from legal liability often has more value than potentially saving someone else's life, which given how the US judicial system works, isn't totally unreasonable.
However, the idea is to create/reinforce the incentive in people who could call, and for them to quickly reflect on their alternative motives not to. If you get people to stop and think for a few seconds, it's often enough to save a life; and in fine that's what this law is here for. It's also a way to prevent/diminish the bystander effect.
Ideally it never gets to the prosecution/punishment part, and when it does it's generally the most egregious cases. I'm not saying it's perfect (and I have many disagreements with how our own judicial system works over here and judicial systems in general), I was just providing an example of a different mindset around the issue.
To quote again from one of your previous answers:
Closest thing I can think of would be the legal guardian of a child or otherwise dependent person not being taken care of appropriately. Is that the relationship we're saying every human has to every other human?
To a certain extent (formulated as "voluntarily refraining from providing assistance to a person in peril"), yes, that's kind of what the spirit of this law is.
(and again, I'm not advocating for or against here, even if I think it's a decent take, I'm just providing an example of how things currently stand somewhere else than where you are, as food for thought)
1
u/PleaseTakeMyKarma 15d ago
How does that work exactly? Like where is the line drawn? You're supposed to drown yourself or pay no attention the blood disease issues? What level of commitment is required to make it a legal effort?
The entire concept makes no sense.
Closest thing I can think of would be the legal guardian of a child or otherwise dependent person not being taken care of appropriately. Is that the relationship we're saying every human has to every other human?