Are Depraved Indifference Laws Wrong?

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
That is why I oppose taxation, forced jury duty, the draft, as well as "good Samaritan" laws (among many other similar such laws).

[/ QUOTE ]

Good Samaritan laws in the United States do not require you to take action. They protect you from liability if you chose to. The purpose is to encourage people to help without fear of being sued. And I think most jurisdictions have them. In the drowning person scenario, if you throw the person a life preserver and it hits him in the head and kills him, you wouldn’t be held liable, criminally nor civilly.

web page

Depraved indifference has to do with your actions, not lack of actions (as some pointed out).

[George Rice]

Answering your question, I think such a law is reasonable. But I reserve the right to oppose it after I see how it's worded.

As for voting for a governor, I accept no responsibility for his or her actions. That's his or her responsibility. Besides, there are too many issues involved.

Example: Candidate A is in favor of the death penalty but Candidate B is opposed to it. Candidate A is in favor of providing shelter for the homeless but Candidate B is opposed to it. If I'm opposed to the death penalty and in favor of providing shelter for the homeless then what? Am I responsible for the innocent people who might get executed if I vote for Candidate A and he wins? Am I responsible for the homeless who might die if I vote for Candidate B and he wins? And that's only two issues. There are hundreds.

[George Rice]

Taking it one step further.

If I'm all for Candidate A and one of the by-products is that some homeless will die that otherwise wouldn't have if Candidate B were elected; And there are no such concerns with Candidate B, who I oppose because Candidate A will save me more money; And I'm aware of these things; Then, I shouldn't be held legally responsible for Candidate A's actions if he's elected. But it's "morally" wrong and I should be ashamed of myself.

Many who opposed George Bush did so because of the war, the people who will die if it doesn't end, and because they don't believe it will stop terrorism (in fact it may increase it). If all these things were accurate then the people who voted for him should not be held responsible. However, George Bush should be held responsible if he knew all these things.

[George Rice]

And now another step:

Suppose Adolph Hitler was reincarnated and ran for President. Most everyone knows what he'll do if elected and he makes no secret about it. In fact he declares, "This time, no more Mr. Nice Guy!" If he's elected should those who voted for him be held responsible?

Yes. Because his actions wouldn't be by-products of legitimate concerns. Candidate A's concern was saving money and not wasting it on people who chose to life outside societies boundaries. Hitler's concerns are purity of race and absolute power and other nasty things. If Candidate A had stated that he wanted to cut funding to shelters so the homeless would die and rid society of a burden, then the answer would be different for Candidate A voters.

[gull]

No, murder should be allowed in some cases.

But I still believe in the equality of commission and ommission.

[Propertarian]

If these laws lead to more people being saved from death (or some other major negative), at the tiny cost of an equal ammount of people taking a few minutes out of their life to completely keep another life, than of course these laws are a good idea.

Those who say these laws are wrong for non-consequentalist reason are simply frightening. Whatever crazy "that's not the state's business" justifications you come up with, the bottom line is that person X not dying unecessarily is more important than 15 minutes of person Y's time (person Y is also presumably an [censored], because he/she would have walked by the drowning/injured man instead of helping them).

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
the bottom line is that person X not dying unecessarily is more important than 15 minutes of person Y's time

[/ QUOTE ]

I would disagree with this. These trivial situations to save someone's life aren't stopping a mugger or a wild animal or something. It's stuff like if you see a guy walking on thin ice and there is a stick near by to pull him out with. I submit that it is more important to let him die so that he can't further dilute the gene pool.

[calmasahinducow]

NY Penal Law states:

A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.

NY Penal Law defines criminal negligence as:

"Criminal negligence." A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

[MayorHerb]

EMTs (here), and other first responders (fire police, etc.) if first on scene, are required to stop at accident scenes regardless of location and give assistance.

It's part of their position, which they have given their lives to (voluntarily), and are covered for liability by the state and locally.

Others are covered by Good Samaritan laws which give limited liability if you DO assist.

[George Rice]

NY Penal Law states:

A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person. (emphasis added)

That's a lot different than allowing someone to die.