CA "Good Samaritan" Law

[chanel]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Witnesses could be charged with a misdemeanor for failing to report violent attacks in California under legislation approved by the state Assembly.

The bill by Democratic Assemblyman Pedro Nava of Santa Barbara follows the October gang rape of a 16-year-old girl outside Richmond High School's homecoming dance. Investigators believe as many as 10 people participated while another 20 or so watched without calling police.

Current law requires witnesses to report violent crimes when the victim is younger than 14. Nava's bill expands the requirement to include victims of all ages. Violators would face up to six months in jail and a maximum

Calif. bill requires witnesses to report crimes - California State Wire - Fresnobee.com

Good idea?

 

[Father Time]

Terrible idea.

First of all not reporting things to the police should not be a crime because well it's not violating anyone.

Second it would mean less info to the police in some instances. Let's say someone witnessed a crime and didn't say anything. If they were to have a change of heart and report it they would be admitting to a crime.

Also isn't this technically compelled speech (i.e. violation of the first amendment)?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Terrible idea.

First of all not reporting things to the police should not be a crime because well it's not violating anyone.

Second it would mean less info to the police in some instances. Let's say someone witnessed a crime and didn't say anything. If they were to have a change of heart and report it they would be admitting to a crime.

I am torn, HOWEVER. The fact remains as long as we do not require reporting crimes we encourage that behavior. They already require crimes on children under the age of 15 to be reported, so tell me how does one determine the age of the child victim?

A simple fix for your problem is to make it so they can not try them if they later tell what they know, BEFORE it is to late to help.

 

[Father Time]

Terrible idea.

First of all not reporting things to the police should not be a crime because well it's not violating anyone.

Second it would mean less info to the police in some instances. Let's say someone witnessed a crime and didn't say anything. If they were to have a change of heart and report it they would be admitting to a crime.

I am torn, HOWEVER. The fact remains as long as we do not require reporting crimes we encourage that behavior. They already require crimes on children under the age of 15 to be reported, so tell me how does one determine the age of the child victim?

A simple fix for your problem is to make it so they can not try them if they later tell what they know, BEFORE it is to late to help.

Not really, by making it a crime in the first place we're discouraging the behavior.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Terrible idea.

First of all not reporting things to the police should not be a crime because well it's not violating anyone.

Second it would mean less info to the police in some instances. Let's say someone witnessed a crime and didn't say anything. If they were to have a change of heart and report it they would be admitting to a crime.

I am torn, HOWEVER. The fact remains as long as we do not require reporting crimes we encourage that behavior. They already require crimes on children under the age of 15 to be reported, so tell me how does one determine the age of the child victim?

A simple fix for your problem is to make it so they can not try them if they later tell what they know, BEFORE it is to late to help.

Not really, by making it a crime in the first place we're discouraging the behavior.

I disagree. People do not want to get involved. They refuse to tell anything. If it were illegal some people would feel compelled to talk. Further if the cops KNOW someone saw something they would have the ability to try and force information out of unwilling people.

 

[lawbuff]

Good idea?

That is not really a good samaritan law, that is, say, where I give first aid to a car accident victim. As long as my aid was not grossly negligent, etc., I am immune from a civil suit for damages by them or thier estate.

Here we have a mandatory reporting law. In my state it is only mandatory to report a felony, if not, it is a misdemanor of the 4th degree.

The US Code also has a felony reporting statute, Misprision of felony.

Some are already bound by law to report crimes, say a doctor who knows that a child has been abused, even if it was a misdemeanor crime.

Reporting can be done anonymously. Even if one is caught not reporting one, the penalty is small.

The law here deals with "violent attacks ", per the article, and the crime in question was witnessed like the Kitty Genovese case. Failure to report in this case should be a lower level crime, I have no problem with that.

 

[Gem]

I have several concerns with this law...even though I think that people should always report crimes that they have witnessed.

From a purely non-emotional standpoint...is this law truly enforceable? If you come across a hit and run and no one has remained at the scene...are we really going to task our already over-worked police departments with hunting down all of the witnesses to charge them with a crime? What about the paperwork involved and the office processing fees, etc. in charging 25 people with a minor crime? It seems to me that this might be one of those "sounds like it might be a good idea" until it becomes another nightmare of paperwork, ridiculous fees, time spent and money lost...

And as far as the Kitty Genovese crime is concerned...read "Super Freakonomics" it has an absolutely fascinating look on how what most people believe about that case is actually dead wrong.

 

[JD_2B]

They shouldn't have changed the age rule. The rule that was in place already was ample. Now a bunch of people will be in trouble all the time, including child victims that don't report their own victim status. I also agree, Father time, that this is a violation of the fifth amendment.

 

[manifold]

What a sad commentary on the current state of society where people would actually need a law to compel them to report the rape of a minor.

 

[Luissa]

I think it is sad they would have to have a law, but in today's world I guess we need one.

 

[PixieStix]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Witnesses could be charged with a misdemeanor for failing to report violent attacks in California under legislation approved by the state Assembly.

The bill by Democratic Assemblyman Pedro Nava of Santa Barbara follows the October gang rape of a 16-year-old girl outside Richmond High School's homecoming dance. Investigators believe as many as 10 people participated while another 20 or so watched without calling police.

Current law requires witnesses to report violent crimes when the victim is younger than 14. Nava's bill expands the requirement to include victims of all ages. Violators would face up to six months in jail and a maximum

Calif. bill requires witnesses to report crimes - California State Wire - Fresnobee.com

Good idea?

Legislating conscience

Seems nice on it's face, but most people don't have one

 

[manifold]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Witnesses could be charged with a misdemeanor for failing to report violent attacks in California under legislation approved by the state Assembly.

The bill by Democratic Assemblyman Pedro Nava of Santa Barbara follows the October gang rape of a 16-year-old girl outside Richmond High School's homecoming dance. Investigators believe as many as 10 people participated while another 20 or so watched without calling police.

Current law requires witnesses to report violent crimes when the victim is younger than 14. Nava's bill expands the requirement to include victims of all ages. Violators would face up to six months in jail and a maximum

Calif. bill requires witnesses to report crimes - California State Wire - Fresnobee.com

Good idea?

Legislating conscience

Seems nice on it's face, but most people don't have one

I take it you're pro-choice for the same reason.

 

[PixieStix]

Calif. bill requires witnesses to report crimes - California State Wire - Fresnobee.com

Good idea?

Legislating conscience

Seems nice on it's face, but most people don't have one

I take it you're pro-choice for the same reason.

I am pro choice in the real sense of the word, not the stolen version

I am against abortion.

 

[Father Time]

Legislating conscience

Seems nice on it's face, but most people don't have one

I take it you're pro-choice for the same reason.

I am pro choice in the real sense of the word, not the stolen version

I am against abortion.

Since when did pro-choice mean anything but 'keep abortion legal'?

If that's not what you mean then you're just calling yourself pro-choice because it sounds nice.

 

[manifold]

Legislating conscience

Seems nice on it's face, but most people don't have one

I take it you're pro-choice for the same reason.

I am pro choice in the real sense of the word, not the stolen version

I am against abortion.

Ditto.

 

[PixieStix]

I take it you're pro-choice for the same reason.

I am pro choice in the real sense of the word, not the stolen version

I am against abortion.

Since when did pro-choice mean anything but 'keep abortion legal'?

If that's not what you mean then you're just calling yourself pro-choice because it sounds nice.

Re read my post, that is what I am talking about. I am talking about the anti lifers taking a perfectly good word and changing the meaning of it for their agenda. The left does it all the time. I happen to think we should call them on it every time they "choose" to hijack a word or phrase

 

[Zander]

A silly law that if passed, will never be enforced. That is what the legislature in this state specialize in - useless laws that are not enforced. All that matters is that everyone gets a warm fuzzy "feeling" when they vote "Yes"........Idiots!

 

[Father Time]

I am pro choice in the real sense of the word, not the stolen version

I am against abortion.

Since when did pro-choice mean anything but 'keep abortion legal'?

If that's not what you mean then you're just calling yourself pro-choice because it sounds nice.

Re read my post, that is what I am talking about. I am talking about the anti lifers taking a perfectly good word and changing the meaning of it for their agenda. The left does it all the time. I happen to think we should call them on it every time they "choose" to hijack a word or phrase

Meanwhile it's ok for the anti-choicers to hijack the word life?

 

[PixieStix]

Since when did pro-choice mean anything but 'keep abortion legal'?

If that's not what you mean then you're just calling yourself pro-choice because it sounds nice.

Re read my post, that is what I am talking about. I am talking about the anti lifers taking a perfectly good word and changing the meaning of it for their agenda. The left does it all the time. I happen to think we should call them on it every time they "choose" to hijack a word or phrase

Meanwhile it's ok for the anti-choicers to hijack the word life?

How utterly silly
Pro LIFE means just that, LIFE for the baby.

Not his or her "choice" though is it?

 

[Father Time]

Oh brother. Everyone's pro-life and pro-choice in the broader sense. But fine you're denying choice to women hence anti and pro-choice.

You can choose to take a life all the time 'Would you like to eat this animal? Would you like to call an exterminator? etc.'

Oh and question how many pro-lifers are OK with the death penalty?

Anyone can play your semantics game.