1. Should all jurisdictions have a Good Samaritan law requiring an individual to help another
individual if they are able? Explain why
Each jurisdiction is governed differently according to the dynamics of that city and its
citizens. Laws are voted in and decided by those cities elected officials. All jurisdictions should
have some aspects for a law in place when being a Good Samaritan is concerned. It should be
left up to each city to vote whether they want to mandate a law that deems it mandatory for able
bodied citizens to help another in need. In the normative ethics standpoint each individual has
the opportunity to figure out the best moral action to take when dealing with people. Making a
Good Samaritan law would make people more accountable to help others but it does not
guarantee the quality of help an individual may receive. There are numerous components that
place in such a law. For example, what would be the fine for a individual that did not practice
their good Samaritan right, or how would our legal system justify whether a good Samaritan
dropped the ball in a situation where they could have helped an individual. Laws are carefully
made and usually encompass a standard for all to follow. In the case of a Good Samaritan every
person is not able to help in every instance or be qualified to make such a call. Applied ethics has
a basis for citizens to question whether it is right to help someone in need and if one should take
the measures to do it if able. Morally everyone should take the initiative to help a person in need
but because all circumstances warrant different experienced help it is often not solely based on a
moral reasoning. There are situations that can warrant a certain amount of experience and
boldness. A Good Samaritan has to first take the initiative to say that they want to help and then
execute that act with not thought. Lastly, it would be a good thing to have a law in place for good
Samaritans to abide by but in some instances the law alone does not mean that all will follow it
willingly.
2. Should vigilantism be permitted when the criminal justice system fails? Explain why or
why not. Under what circumstances might you violate the law to enforce the law?
Clearly, vigilantism is the act of an individual seeking justice at the plight of their own
biased means for vengeance. To permit individuals the right to practice vigilantism would be
one of the weakest forms of justice for our society. Every person has their reasons for wanting to
seek justice for horrible acts committed towards them. However, as individuals we are seemingly
biased when demonstrating justice amongst those who have harmed us. It is no shocker that our
justice system can often times fail those who have been victims but giving individuals the right
to seek their own justice would turn our world into a mob ruled environment. The criminal
justice system is not a perfect system but it is definitely a system that believes in fair and just
treatment for all. This includes fair treatment for the offender and the victim and laws and
punishments that are fit for the crime. Individuals seeking vengeance would definitely be
personal and carried out with unfair and unjust motives. In 2010, William Lynch a, 44 year old
man allegedly brutally beat his former priest bloody because Lynch insisted that the priest, Jerold
Lindner made Lynch and his younger brother perform oral sex on each other as kids while he
watched (Cohen, 2010). In many instances people will agree that Lynch’s actions were
justifiable because of what the priest did to him and his brother. However, it is still not a just and
fair way to handle the situations. As individuals we often tend to seek revenge upon those who
hurt or treated us horribly but this type of justice only creates havoc and chaos within our
society. I can sympathize with the feelings of Lynch but in no way is it healthy for individuals to
just go out and beat up or kill those people who have harmed or damaged us physically or
emotionally.
3. Reference:
Cohen, C. (2010, November). Should Sex Abuse Justify a Vigilante Attack?. Time U.S., (), 1-6.
Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2031720,00.html
Jacobs, R. N. (1996). Civil Society and Crisis: Culture, Discourse, and the Rodney King Beating.
The American Journal Of Sociology, (5), 1238. doi:10.2307/2782354
Schauer, E. J. (2008). Morality Stories: Dilemmas in Ethics, Crime and Justice (2nd ed.).
International Criminal Justice Review (Sage Publications), 18(3), 366-367.
doi:10.1177/1057567708322522
