Good Samritan Law Criminal Justice

Robert Evans

Good Samaritan

J255 Ethics in Criminal

Week 2 Written Assignment

July 14, 2012

*

My first argument towards the Good Samaritan would be that they were at fault for doing something beyond their capabilities; doing nothing or seeking trained emergency help in that situation might have been a better use of the Good Samaritan’s effort. The argument would be made that this Good Samaritan overreached within even the most deontological approach to helping fellow humans. Emmanuel Kant believed that the morality of an action is determined by whether it conforms to, or violates a moral principle (Kant, 1785). There was no moral or ethical obligation to stop and help, and when the Good Samaritan did, when moving the victim he crossed over to a different role of being an onsite first responder. The goal of any first responder is to do no harm and since it’s up to the good Samaritan to know what level of medical training they have in this situation, and if unsure what to do, the best choice would have been to do nothing or get someone there that did know what they were doing. Of course if the good Samaritan moved the victim because of exigent circumstances, maybe out of fear the vehicle might ignite and engulf everyone in fire including the good Samaritan than that could mitigate moving a victim involved in a auto crash to a safe location.

This Good Samaritan might have some legal issues, even bypassing the utility of the situation, helping out your fellow man. The ramifications of the actions have the final say. Moving a victim in a car accident is a bad thing to do if you’re not properly trained and know what you’re doing. The Good Samaritan although well meaning did not help the situation; they only managed to make the situation worse. If someone is drowning, and someone comes to their aid, but doesn’t know proper techniques in swim aid and in fact can’t swim very well, that is recipe for disaster, by making a bad situation even worse....