Are Depraved Indifference Laws Wrong?

[David Sklansky]

PLEASE don't nitpick definitions or details.

Your state passes a law that says that if you encounter someone who will die if you don't perform an act to save him, and in fact you don't, you get six months in jail. Assuming that it can be proved you understood the situation, and the sacrifice expected of you was "trivial".

Philosophically speaking only, should states be making such laws?

[almostbusto]

no. that simply isn't the government's role. or shouldn't be.

next question.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
PLEASE don't nitpick definitions or details.

Your state passes a law that says that if you encounter someone who will die if you don't perform an act to save him, and in fact you don't, you get six months in jail. Assuming that it can be proved you understood the situation, and the sacrifice expected of you was "trivial".

Philosophically speaking only, should states be making such laws?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this is nitpicky, but you seem to be using the term "depraved indifference" incorrectly. "Depraved indifference" is a condition that raises reckless behavior to murder, even if it can't be shown that you specifically intended to kill anyone. E.g., if you unload an uzi into a passing train, or drop a body off a bridge into fast-moving traffic.

As for the question you're getting at, of whether good Samaritan laws are justifiable, I see no reason why not. They've been around in various forms since the beginning of lawmaking, and the only people who really object to them are extreme libertarians. I'm sure many in this forum are of that ilk and will disagree.

[Shane Michael]

no

[JasonK]

It's already required if you are legally responsible for the person, yeah? So why does it being a stranger make it a no?

[mjkidd]

If it can be proved that you could have saved someone's life with a trivial sacrifice, then no seperate law need be invoked. You are guilty of murder. Say someone is drowning, and you're standing on the dock with a life preserver. They're shouting, yelling, pleading you to throw them the life presever. You don't, because it's a pretty long toss, and you're not sure you'll get your life preserver back. Plus, even if you do get it back, it will be wet. If these facts are stipulated and the drowning guy dies, the Bad Samaritan will be convicted of murder. As he should be.

[David Sklansky]

Is that true? In any case its a more interesting argument if the sacrifice is a tad less trivial. Something you would pay $10 to avoid.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that true? In any case its a more interesting argument if the sacrifice is a tad less trivial. Something you would pay $10 to avoid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does the law really need to stand up to logic or ethics as long as it is obviously in the best interest for the society as a whole?

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that true? In any case its a more interesting argument if the sacrifice is a tad less trivial. Something you would pay $10 to avoid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it depends on the state. In NY, you are guilty of second degree murder if you

"Recklessly engage in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person when he or she

1) engages in conduct which creates a grave and unjustifiable risk that another person's death will occur
2) And when he or she is aware of and consciously disregards that risk,
3) And when that grave and unjustifiable risk is of such nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation."

My example of the guy not wanting to get his life preserver wet would, I believe, clearly meet this standard. And if you substitute any ten dollar motivation for the dry life preserver motivation, you'll likely also be guilty of murder under this standard.

[thedorf]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that true?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but you'd be in big trouble. Murder is a very specific legal term with all kinds of implications for culpability and sentencing. I know you said no nitpicking but this question invited it.