Originally posted by PinkFloydThat is correct. But even in states that don't require you to report it, if it is a particularly heinous crime, you might be charged with a "depraved indifference".
So if I SEE someone committing a crime, and I don't report it, am I guilty of a crime? As I understand it, in some states I am; others, no.
Like if you saw someone beating a newborn infant with a club and just said oh well not my business.
Originally posted by PinkFloydI believe that that is not correct. I don't believe that you are guilty of a crime in any state. It is certainly not conspiracy, which requires an agreement and intent to achieve the criminal objective. The last episode of Seinfeld notwithstanding, there is no affirmative duty to act under American criminal law. In addition, obstruction of justice applies only if you affirmative cover up the crime, destroy evidence or lie to the police.
So if I SEE someone committing a crime, and I don't report it, am I guilty of a crime? As I understand it, in some states I am; others, no.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamAs morally reprehensible as your actions in standing by and doing nothing are, you are not guilty of a crime under American criminal law. Unless of course, it was your infant or there is some other special relationship or circumstance that gives you the duty to act. It's possible that there are states that might consider that a crime, but I don't know of any and I don't think that there are any.
Like if you saw someone beating a newborn infant with a club and just said oh well not my business.
Originally posted by sh76I'm pretty sure a man in Nevada was prosecuted several years ago because he witnessed a man take a child into a public restroom--said man either kidnapped and/or abused this boy.
I believe that that is not correct. I don't believe that you are guilty of a crime in any state. It is certainly not conspiracy, which requires an agreement and intent to achieve the criminal objective. The last episode of Seinfeld notwithstanding, there is no affirmative duty to act under American criminal law. In addition, obstruction of justice applies only if you affirmative cover up the crime, destroy evidence or lie to the police.
Originally posted by sh76Possible. As I remember the story though, the controversy was an "am I my brother's keeper" type of argument. A man sees something that MAY be suspicious--is he required to report it to the authorities? That's the kind of editorials I remember from the story, but again--it was years ago and I can't find anything on it.
Maybe the guy was the lookout for the abuser/kidnapper.
This all rang a bell - I seem to recall both France and Germany have laws that require one to provide assistance to a person in danger. I was double-checking my memory was not in error, and wound up on Wikipedia.
Now, wary as I am of taking anything there at face value, I was intrigued by the statement that "contrary to common law, eight states [in the US] have laws requiring people to help strangers in peril" (although "These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers".) There's references to follow up.
As I say, I was simply intrigued by this - is Wikipedia (again) in error? Or are the laws so unenforced as to be to all intents and purposes lapsed?
Originally posted by DrKFDon't know about Germany, but France certainly has.
This all rang a bell - I seem to recall both France and Germany have laws that require one to provide assistance to a person in danger. I was double-checking my memory was not in error, and wound up on Wikipedia.
Now, wary as I am of taking anything there at face value, I was intrigued by the statement that "contrary to common law, eight states [in th ...[text shortened]... again) in error? Or are the laws so unenforced as to be to all intents and purposes lapsed?
Most European nations have laws in place that if you have a first-aid certificate, you are required to give assistance as well.
I let mine go out of date in case I'd have to help a conservative.