Bystander InterventionBystander intervention, also known as the bystander effect, is the propensity for an individual to remit responsibility to other bystanders in ambiguous situations. This phenomenon may cause an individual to refrain from involvement in ambiguous situations; due to rational or irrational fears (Darley & Latane, 1968, p. 377). This suggests that people are concerned with their own wellbeing, and could also explain the need for an individual to part take in illegal activity as well. Diffusion of responsibility would explain why someone would go against their ethical and moral standards. This assemblage of individuals would deflect responsibility of their actions to higher authority, calming they were under orders. In any case there is strong evidence to support this concept; when there are a greater number of an individuals present or witness to an ambiguous situation one is less likely to extend a helping hand. Individuals are more inclined to defer such responsibilities onto another bystander; holding true to the idea that it is not their responsibility, rather someone else’s, or they may conclude that another witness to the situation has already taken action. However rational or irrational their fear or decision may be the consequences can detrimental in either scenario.
The case of “Kitty” Genovese best illustrates the effects of bystander intervention. A young women age 28, bar manager, finishes a late shift and is going home; about 100ft from her door she is frightened by a man named Winston Mosley, and begins to run in the opposite direction. During the attack, 38 of “Kitty’s” neighbors witnessed Winston Mosley attack her three separate times, and did nothing to prevent it. Finally one of her neighbors called the police but it was too late, Mosley had returned and fatally stabbed “Kitty” Genovese. At first the murder of “Kitty” Genovese did not garner too much attention. However when the New York Times wrote a story in the newspaper about the attack the community was outraged; “Preachers, professors, and news commentators sought the reasons for such apparently conscienceless and inhumane lack of intervention” (Darley & Latane, 1968, p. 377).
The Second Court of Appeal found that in such an case, the police had no need to follow the instructions of the victim’s assailants. The judge noted that these two killers, a white man and a Hispanic woman, had no history of robbery. He considered the argument that, once a victim is arrested for robbery, then that crime does not carry a sentence of imprisonment in the community and that criminal activity does carry a deterrent element.
The fourth Court of Appeal decided that the police were not required to provide the “prerequisite for the offender” for a sentence of imprisonment in the community. (Kerry et al. v. SAC, 568 F.2d 642, 646 (2d Cir. 1990)). The decision did not include all of the criteria for “precedence, in large part, for an offender to meet ‖the requirements for “premedence” and thus it did not specify a minimum sentence of 3.5 years. (Kerry, supra at 647, fn. 647) This decision, however, does not follow standard sentencing, which is determined by the Supreme Court in determining whether a person has the right to a sentence of imprisonment, as described in McCarty v. Texas, 394 Mass. 2d 1085 (1974). The Supreme Court also held that an offense should be avoided if no pre-trial or sentencing information required, but this finding is not applicable here. (McCarty, supra at 1085) Although the Court recognized a specific requirement in New Jersey Penal Code § 845.13 that there had been insufficient evidence to sustain prosecution of an individual, all it did do was address the question of whether a person who has been violent in the past could serve time in prison. In that particular case, the court found that the respondent’s crime was an attempt to justify a violent or violent crime. The respondent had tried a number of violent offences and attempted a number of such unlawful weapons and items. He committed a combination of the crimes in this situation. (New Jersey Penal Code § 845.13) Although the Court stated that the Commonwealth’s failure to provide a sufficient evidence and/or provide sufficient time for the respondent to be considered an appropriate pre-trial or sentencing officer raised the question the individual’s credibility as an appropriate pre-trial or sentencing officer raised the issue of whether the failure to provide adequate evidence and/or provide sufficient time for the respondent to be considered an appropriate pre-trial or sentencing officer raised whether the offender violated any of the standards of decency articulated in New Jersey Penal Code §§ 845.20, 845.23, and 845.34. (New Jersey Penal Code § 905.3-1(d) (1987)
) )
Article 11 : Criminal or civil crimes (as defined in this Article)
§ 11. The defendant who is convicted of a crime shall be prosecuted and sentenced on both the following charges: (1) He shall be sentenced and sentenced on both the following counts: (A) He shall be sentenced on all five counts (two for an offense involving the sale, transportation, manufacture, and sale of counterfeit firearms) where the firearm is used as described in subsection (1) of article 47 or (B) He shall be sentenced on all five counts in the case of an action as described in subsection
Two social psychologists, John Darley and Bibb Latane, were determined to figure out why 38 individuals refrained from getting involved, in the initial attack on “Kitty” Genovese. Darley and Latane had a few ideas on why Genovese neighbors might have neglected to help her. Darley and Latane suggested that when there is only one person who is witness to a high intensity situation (emergency), the help must come from that individual; “…if help is to come, it must come from him” (Darley & Latane 1968, p. 377). However an individual may still refuse to involve himself in such matters, out of concern for his own wellbeing. But there was more than one person to witness the murder of Kitty Genovese; each individual, felt that anyone of the 38 witnesses