Should bystanders of crime be convicted? There is almost always something that a bystander can do to help stop crime against another human. If the criminal is waving a weapon around, it is understandable that not many bystanders would step up to the plate. However, there have been many cases lately that have shown how little bystanders do to help a person in need, when they are fully able to. Some of these bystanders actually JOIN the perpetrator. The links I have posted here show video of a woman being beaten in a subway, with subway officers there. The officers say that it is not their job to step in, and they called for reinforcement. Whoever said that stepping in is not permitting was obviously not there, and did not see how important it is that they DO step in. The second video is a news report of a high school girl who was gang raped outside of her homecoming dance. People watched and jeered, and some who had just been walking by joined in to rape her. Some even recorded the event on their cell-phone cameras. But no one helped these victims. Last semester I took Social Psychology and learned about the Kitty Genovese case. This woman was killed outside of her apartment complex as her neighbors watched and listened. They were given ample time to go out and help her or call for police after the killer had left. No one did anything. This is known as the bystander effect, which is sometimes caused by diffusion of responsibility. Bystanders think, "Someone else will surely help, someone else has probably already done something, yea, I don't have to do anything." But often no one helps! This cannot be used as an excuse. These people are almost as guilty as the perpetrator and should be convicted too.
Not So Innocent Bystanders
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://www.psychologicalscience.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/1493
I would have to disagree with people being almost as guilty as the perpetrator. In many of these cases, bystanders believe that A.) someone else is taking care of the situation, B.) since no one else is worried, they shouldn't be concerned, C.) they don't want to interfere with the situation as they have no means to help, and/or D.) They don't even realize there is a situation going on. As you've posted, the Bystander Effect is typically caused by diffusion of responsibility. IE, the bigger the group, the more diffusion there is. Now those that record the events taking place for personal pleasures should be arrested for something; leaving the scene of the crime, withholding information/evidence, whatever, but a bystander who happens to show after the scene of the crime, but does nothing shouldn't be held responsible. The final episode of Seinfeld actually pokes fun of the Bystander Effect, in which it is a crime in New Jersey for those that do nothing during a crime.
Here's a recent personal story that happened this weekend. I was heading to work, passing Iowa City, where I saw a semi truck T-bone a sedan that came out of nowhere on I-80. I pulled over to help. Luckily everyone was fine. After all the other witnesses who pulled over, the semi truck driver, and the sedan's passengers were together, I was the one who asked if anyone remembered to dial 911. We all looked at each other and someone IMMEDIATELY volunteered to do so. There were many people that saw exactly what happened, but only 3 vehicles pulled over to help. I almost didn't myself, thinking there were many others who would and I had 4 more hours to drive, but the term, "Bystander Effect," popped into my head as I was passing.
If being affected by the "Bystander Effect" was a crime, then there were over 200 individuals who would be arrested/fined, and 8 people somehow involved in the accident that would have been arrested/fined for almost forgetting to call 911. For one, it's just not practical to make being a "bystander" a crime. Now, the guy who pulled over and took a picture of the collision and drove off should have his butt thrown in jail, yes, but not anyone else for driving away.