Bystanders being required to report violent/sex crimes against adults

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I had a conversation about the issue of requiring bystanders to report violent crimes. This issue was raised by the October 2009 gang rape of a 15-year-old girl outside her homecoming dance. The fact that over 20 bystanders watched and did nothing caused as much of an outrage as the rape itself. I asked about whether laws should be enacted be enacted to require people to report such crimes. In California where the crime took place too bills were introduced in response. This one http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_840_bill_20100624_amended_asm_v96.pdf) would require anyone who witnesses the rape or murder of a minor to report it. The girl in the case was not covered by current law because that law only covers people aged 14 and under. This bill (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_984_bill_20100115_amended_asm_v95.pdf) would remove the age requirement of the victim requiring witness to report all sex crimes and violent crimes regardless of the age of the victim. Both bills have exceptions so that people who have reasonable reasons not to report are not penalized.

In the course of the conversation the opinion was expressed that such laws should only over people who are unable to report crimes committed against them such as children who may not be able to report crimes because they do not know right from wrong , do not know how to describe the crimes committed against them, or are do not know how or where to report such crimes. It was also said that such mandatory reporting laws should not cover adults because it would infringe upon their rights to choose whether they want crimes committed against them to be reported or investigated.

Do you agree with such views or do you think that people have a responsibility to report crimes in order to put criminals away especially if they are the type that will repeat their crimes?

[Sage]

Like it or not, people have the right to remain silent, in every sense. The last thing that is needed in America are more asinine laws that will send thousands upon thousands of people to jail.

[Nilnoc]

I think it should be considered obstruction of justice not to report a violent crime.

[TopGear]

I completely agree with Sage. Everyone has the right to remain silent, even if it's not the 'right' thing to do, but some people don't want to get caught up in a situation like that. As bad as that sounds, its true. I would hope people wouldn't have to be like " Shit if I don't report this im going to jail" it should be instinct for a human to report such a crime.

[Nilnoc]

Of course it should, but obviously it is not.

If you had the final say on this law, and say it affected whether or not the police solve the case involvong that girl, what would you do?

[Sage]

If you had the final say on this law, and say it affected whether or not the police solve the case involvong that girl, what would you do?

It doesn't matter what I'd do. Just because someone by chance sees something doesn't mean they should have to be forced to involve themselves in the whole case. I don't care what the "right" thing to do is, I am against using the law to force people to do what other people feel is "right."

[Nilnoc]

I want your honest opinion. If it means bringing multiple rapists to justice, and possible hundreds, maybe thousands, of rapists, burglars, and murderers in the future, would you approve?

[TopGear]

I want your honest opinion. If it means bringing multiple rapists to justice, and possible hundreds, maybe thousands, of rapists, burglars, and murderers in the future, would you approve?

Its not doing that at all. Your forcing people to do something they are not willing to do if it wasn't for a law.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I want to add something does anyone think that people should be required to report crimes against children on the ground that the child is unable to report it themselves?

[Sage]

I want to add something does anyone think that people should be required to report crimes against children on the ground that the child is unable to report it themselves?

All my points still stand. No. People have the right to not get involved if they do not want to.

[Nilnoc]

Even if they can report it anonymously, with a guarantee if they report it, all they have to do is give one statement?

[Sage]

Even if they can report it anonymously, with a guarantee if they report it, all they have to do is give one statement?

Even then. If you have nothing to do with a crime, you should not be forced in any way to get involved.

[Mzor203]

Even if they can report it anonymously, with a guarantee if they report it, all they have to do is give one statement?

How exactly do you go about enforcing something that allows you to remain anonymous?

[Zazu]

I feel that regardless of any law (set of rules), there is a basic moral obligation to help in some way, shape or form if you feel 1) you can 2) you can do so without then endangering your own health or safety.

If I saw something like that going on, I think the least I would do is call 999 if not get involved to stop it if I could satisfy the above two criteria.

[Death]

Legal obligation? No.

Moral obligation? Yes.

[Sith Lord 13]

Legal obligation? No.

Moral obligation? Yes.

This.

[Nilnoc]

Even then. If you have nothing to do with a crime, you should not be forced in any way to get involved.

But in a way, you are involved if you just let it happen.

[Sage]

But in a way, you are involved if you just let it happen.

Maybe you are, but it's a waste of law enforcement resources to go after people who chose not to get involved. If I were to just walk by a crime in progress, I wouldn't want to think about it. I couldn't give good testimony if I wanted to. And regardless- getting involved can often only make the situation worse. As bad as I may feel for an old lady being mugged, I'm not about to pick a fight with a musclebound, knife-wielding thug.

[Death]

And I wouldn't particually fancy sticking around long enough to be able to describe him and the event in the first place.

[Severus Snape]

I can't fathom why someone who witnessed a rape wouldn't immediately call the police. Why 20 people wouldn't try to overpower the 5 (5, right?) raping the girl I don't know. I would have gotten involved physically to try to stop it.

[Nilnoc]

I can't fathom why someone who witnessed a rape wouldn't immediately call the police. Why 20 people wouldn't try to overpower the 5 (5, right?) raping the girl I don't know. I would have gotten involved physically to try to stop it.

Same here, on all points.


I don't understand you people, how you could just walk by a violent crime.

I just hope if something ever happens to me, that at least someone tries to help, even if they just call the police.

[Sage]

I'm not against the morality of doing something to protect another. I'm against using the law to enforce any sort of morality, be it agreeable or not.

[Amnesiac]

I don't understand you people, how you could just walk by a violent crime.

That's not what we're talking about, though. The topic relates to whether or not a law should be passed that forces people to report crimes. I, and many others, are against that because it results in the government enforcing a moral platform. The law would be ineffective anyway – when someone witnesses a crime, the police don't know they did until they come forward with information. What use is passing a law forcing them to come forward? If they don't want to share the information, they could just keep quiet – the authorities would never know.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

That's not what we're talking about, though. The topic relates to whether or not a law should be passed that forces people to report crimes. I, and many others, are against that because it results in the government enforcing a moral platform. The law would be ineffective anyway – when someone witnesses a crime, the police don't know they did until they come forward with information. What use is passing a law forcing them to come forward? If they don't want to share the information, they could just keep quiet – the authorities would never know.

I am curious. I understand that you feel that such a law is enforcing morality, but do you think it could infringe on the rights of crime victims who do not want the crimes committed against them investigated. It does seem to me that would be the case and it would end up forcing people to submit evidence give statements and testify at court for crimes they did not want reported I am also pondering that in cases where vulnerable people such as minors and the mentally disabled or anyone who is unable to report crimes on their own, do they deserve the legal protection since they can't report it on their own. For example would requiring people to report child abuse protect the rights of children not to be abused, in your opinion?

[Sage]

I am curious. I understand that you feel that such a law is enforcing morality, but do you think it could infringe on the rights of crime victims who do not want the crimes committed against them investigated. It does seem to me that would be the case and it would end up forcing people to submit evidence give statements and testify at court for crimes they did not want reported I am also pondering that in cases where vulnerable people such as minors and the mentally disabled or anyone who is unable to report crimes on their own, do they deserve the legal protection since they can't report it on their own. For example would requiring people to report child abuse protect the rights of children not to be abused, in your opinion?

It's still an enforcement of morality and therefore non-negotiable in my book.

[Amnesiac]

I am curious. I understand that you feel that such a law is enforcing morality, but do you think it could infringe on the rights of crime victims who do not want the crimes committed against them investigated. It does seem to me that would be the case and it would end up forcing people to submit evidence give statements and testify at court for crimes they did not want reported I am also pondering that in cases where vulnerable people such as minors and the mentally disabled or anyone who is unable to report crimes on their own, do they deserve the legal protection since they can't report it on their own. For example would requiring people to report child abuse protect the rights of children not to be abused, in your opinion?

Now, this is where we start debating what actions do infringe on individual rights and what don't.

I agree, first, that this law would result in people having crimes that they don't want investigated, investigated. Still, I can see why someone would argue that this is a good thing – the victim was harmed by an individual who has shown that he/she is willing to infringe the rights of others. Do we force an investigation to protect society, or leave it to protect the individual's right to privacy?

As for those who are unable to protect themselves, the crimes should be reported by default, yes. While the competent adult/young adult is completely able to report a crime out of choice, the disabled and small children aren't, and it can be assumed that they would report it themselves if they were able.

[ManyPearTree]

I feel that we would be better off reporting these incidents at our own discretion. I doubt that the authorities could enforce this idea. Also, this would interfere with many constitutional rights such as the right to remain silent.

[Sith Lord 13]

I feel that we would be better off reporting these incidents at our own discretion. I doubt that the authorities could enforce this idea. Also, this would interfere with many constitutional rights such as the right to remain silent.

There is no right to remain silent in the constitution, just the right to avoid self-incrimination. If you're not guilty, you can be forced to testify.

[ManyPearTree]

There is no right to remain silent in the constitution, just the right to avoid self-incrimination. If you're not guilty, you can be forced to testify.

Oops. Haven't had my coffee..

[ShyGuyInChicago]

It's still an enforcement of morality and therefore non-negotiable in my book.

I guess one could say that not reporting crimes crimes against children (or anyone else for that matter) is not violating the child's right since the bystander/witness is not actually doing anything to harm the child. I understand what you are saying. I am curious, what is your opinion on requiring professionals who work around children (teacher, doctors, etc.) to report crimes against children? Do you view that as the same thing?

[Sage]

I guess one could say that not reporting crimes crimes against children (or anyone else for that matter) is not violating the child's right since the bystander/witness is not actually doing anything to harm the child. I understand what you are saying. I am curious, what is your opinion on requiring professionals who work around children (teacher, doctors, etc.) to report crimes against children? Do you view that as the same thing?

You're entirely missing the point I'm making. Such a law isn't necessary because you needn't look further than this thread to see that people don't need the law to make them do the right thing.

[trooneh]

You're entirely missing the point I'm making. Such a law isn't necessary because you needn't look further than this thread to see that people don't need the law to make them do the right thing.

That may be true when people are SAYING what they would do, but when it comes to doing, it isn't so certain. There's the well-documented case of Kitty Genovese, where a woman was brutally beaten and murdered, and approximately a dozen people heard or saw what was happening but no one called the police, despite her desperate cries for help. Do you think at least one of the dozen would claim in such a thread that they would have called the police? Placing a penalty on NOT reacting might have been enough to save that woman's life, and is a strong argument for such a law.

[Perseus]

That may be true when people are SAYING what they would do, but when it comes to doing, it isn't so certain. There's the well-documented case of Kitty Genovese, where a woman was brutally beaten and murdered, and approximately a dozen people heard or saw what was happening but no one called the police, despite her desperate cries for help. Do you think at least one of the dozen would claim in such a thread that they would have called the police? Placing a penalty on NOT reacting might have been enough to save that woman's life, and is a strong argument for such a law.

The police would never be able to enforce that law. Tell me how they would go about inflicting punishments to people who did report the crime when they don't know any of the people who didn't help.

[Sage]

Placing a penalty on NOT reacting might have been enough to save that woman's life, and is a strong argument for such a law.

Regardless of how strong you may feel suck a law may help, it is still a legal enforcement of morality and for that reason it is something I refuse to accept. It is non-negotiable as far as I am concerned. The people who chose to do nothing about that woman know what has happened because of their inaction. That is enough.

[Sith Lord 13]

Regardless of how strong you may feel suck a law may help, it is still a legal enforcement of morality and for that reason it is something I refuse to accept. It is non-negotiable as far as I am concerned. The people who chose to do nothing about that woman know what has happened because of their inaction. That is enough.

Actually, it's about enforcing the protection of the rights of others.

[trooneh]

The police would never be able to enforce that law. Tell me how they would go about inflicting punishments to people who did report the crime when they don't know any of the people who didn't help.

I'm not arguing for the law personally, and I'm aware there is no easy way to enforce such a law, but the idea that people will report the crimes on their own is also flawed. A reward system would probably be the most effective way to encourage people to report crimes, but that could lead to people reporting non-crimes as well as confusion over who actually called the crime in in the first place.

[Sage]

Actually, it's about enforcing the protection of the rights of others.

I love euphemisms myself, but despite how you wish to phrase it, it is not my duty to protect people from crime. I am not in law enforcement. Besides- if a law requiring people to report violent crimes is passed, that only opens the window for other laws that would force people to report non-violent crimes, and in many cases, that is far less agreeable. You all keep missing the point. It's not about this issue alone, it's about the idea of forcing people to police eachother.

[Korashk]

There is no right to remain silent in the constitution, just the right to avoid self-incrimination. If you're not guilty, you can be forced to testify.
The fifth amendment and the right to remain silent are one in the same. You can not be forced to testify. You can be forced to go to court for the purpose of testifying, but you don't have to say anything.

[Sith Lord 13]

The fifth amendment and the right to remain silent are one in the same. You can not be forced to testify. You can be forced to go to court for the purpose of testifying, but you don't have to say anything.

Actually you can be forced to testify so long as it doesn't incriminate yourself (ie if the DA gives you immunity)

[ShaneK]

If peeps honored da spirit "of the social contract" (which is a foundation of da constitution) dey wud report da crime. However by forcing peeps ta report crimes its takin away their freedom.

Tis just another demonstration of da low moral standing of socirty, peeps r onli bothered by things dat effect them directly.