Obligate Bystanders Essay

At no point in time has the California legislative body ever considered allowing other individuals to die, in certain situations, an issue that is punishable by the legal system. Meaning legislators did not find it incumbent to enact a Bill obligating citizens to save others who are in danger. Prior to this enactment, if the general public was asked: “If you saw someone in a life-threatening situation would you attempt to save them?”, the majority of people would confidently answer without a doubt that they would indeed save another individual. If the next question asked was, “why?” we as scholars can reach to the root of the situation. People would feel that they committed an immoral act, by not acting, if they were to witness a pivotal
When comparing the statutory language of the two different statutes similarities jump out at the reader, mainly you are only required to assist in the situation if your involvement does not put you in harm's way as well. I feel this is a key feature in any duty to rescue statute since the goal of these statutes is to allay some of the dangers that others face, meaning legislators do not want others to put themselves in harm’s way in an attempt to rescue someone else. It is counter-intuitive, considering the result is now two people in life-threatening situations. Vermont’s duty to rescue statute poses greater demands on the bystander than the Massachusetts statute does. Vermont’s statute suggests the direct intervention of the bystander to try and diffuse the situation, whereas Massachusetts indicates that the minimal action the bystander must take is alert the proper authorities to handle the situation. I feel that requiring citizens to directly intervene could be problematic. In theory a bystander could in fact not know how to handle any situation that could occur or provide life-saving aid, consequently, the Massachusetts statute seems to ask a more reasonable amount of action from the