Bystander's Argumentative Essay

The study by Darley and Latane leaves society with the knowledge that everyone who is witnessing an emergency is most likely thinking the same thing “someone else will call for help or has already” so “Always act as if you are the only person there” (Darely & Latane, 1968). The concept of situationism is the driving force behind bystander effect. Situationism is “social behavior is, to a larger extent than people commonly realize, a response to people’s social context, not a function of individual personality” (Fiske, 2010, p. 7). Individuals first have to decide if they are witnessing an emergency. Then they need to decide if they have a responsibility to act which is when situationism comes in. If there are hundreds of witnesses each individual see the situation from a different perspective and responsibility to act is diffused among the crowd. On the other hand if one individual sees an emergency and believes there is no one else to help the responsibility rests on him or her. The context of the situation will determine how an individual will react, but people should consider the reality of everyone believing someone else will react and no one reacting. Kitty Genovese would still be alive if even one person would have called the cops when the first attack started.

The article also states that there were tests that were aimed to figure out why the bystanders did not do anything to help. One of the reasons that emerged was, since bystanders were around, a bystander would assume that at least one of them would do something to help the victim. The assumption ends up spreading and then no one helps the victim. I believe the idea that there is safety in numbers is a myth. In an article, it explained that there is not safety in numbers.

Bystanders are not really the bystanders because something similar to what the victim went through might happen to the bystanders someday. If someone is getting beat up, that person would want someone else to help him, vice versa, when the same thing happens to the other person, he or she wishes someone would step up and save him or her from the situation. For instance, if a boy is getting beat up by a man who demands money from him, should bystanders stand and watch the little boy gets beat to death? Even if one is worried about personal safety, or maybe he is scared of blood, it is his responsibility to at least call for help because the little boy’s life is worth saving

That is why they should create a law that holds people accountable and requires the people to assist others when reasonable or call 911, called the Duty To Rescue law. Many will say that the law is taking away one's freedom as it forces one to assist when someone is in need of help. Though it brings up the question of one’s morality to others. When Ruth Krug was raped at a fraternity house, she saw the guy who was a bystander, see what was happening and do nothing. Yes, if the law was implemented then, his freedom would’ve been a bit stolen having to intervene or call authorities, but her “self-worth was stolen” when she was assaulted.

“Good Samaritan” doctrine, which imposes a legal duty to help or call for help for imperiled strangers. American bystander rule is there’s no legal duty to rescue or summon help for someone who’s in danger even if the bystander risks nothing by helping. Only a few jurisdictions follow the “Good Samaritan” rule, nearly all follow the approach of the American bystanders rule.

“A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him… But a certain Samaritan… came upon him; and when he saw him… bandaged up his wounds, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him”. (Source B) This is an example of someone who went against the bystander effect. This Samaritan saw someone that was in dire need of help, and instead of carrying on with their life as if they never saw him, the Samaritan did something about it, fixing up this poor man, and taking him to an inn for shelter. Sometimes people break the Bystander Effect, and are able to assist those in need. In the story On the Sidewalk Bleeding, there are 2 rival gangs, the Royals, and the Guardians. In the story, a Royal named Andy gets stabbed by a group of Guardians, fatally, and is left to die. There were 2 groups of people who could have saved Andy, but did not. A drunk man, and a girl and boy, who were dating. The drunk man did not know that Andy was stabbed and dying, as he thought that Andy was drunk, and the drunk man was obviously to drunk to realize what happened. The boy and girl, however, considered helping him, but “We help him, and the Guardians’ll be down on our necks”. (Source A) They didn’t help him simply out of fear for another gang. If they did decide to help him, if they broke through the Bystander Effect, Andy would have survived in the story. When people break through this effect, lives can be

Americans today tend to believe that we wouldn't need a bystander law because everyone would help another and care. People became careless and not wanting to stand out even if someone's dying on the ground. However, another person walking by would make another walk by making it seem like everything is okay. For example, Kitty Genovese was stabbed once no one helped because everyone was acting like nothing was going on so it triggered others to react the same. Few minutes later the man who stabbed Genovese came back and stabbed her again and again and again just because one person did not help making others think everything is fine, while people could of done the least and called the cops from preventing her death.

Because there is no federal or Florida state law requiring bystanders to help someone in need or to call for help, the teens cannot be charged with any crime. Furthermore, the family and the authorities are frustrated and saddened. The police chief, Mike Cantaloupe, says that he hopes the circumstances of Mr. Dunn’s death lead to legislation that would require bystanders to help in situations such as this one. It seems quite certain that such a law, especially on the federal level, would be beneficial. Bystanders should not be allowed to watch people die and do

The bystander effect is when people choose to stand by when they could help or provide assistance for those in need. It is usually link with the amount of people, the more people, the less likely they are to help. The people often believe that someone else will help and they should not get involved.

Bystanders should never be responsible for a crime that they did not attempt to stop. This rule should not be flexible either, as flexibility creates loopholes. Within the past few years reports police brutality and cases of wrongful deaths have taken over the news. Those stories involve highly trained individuals who were in positions of authority. Imagine if bystanders, having no training or knowledge, decided to take matters into their own hands. As triggerhappy Americans continue to roam, recommending that members of the community should try to stop crime is preposterous*.

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it” (Einstein). The bystander effect is “phenomenon in which the greater the number of people present, the less likely people are to help a person in distress” (Cherry). The people that don’t do anything to help the person that’s in danger can be called a bystander, this could end up leading to the bystander effect. There are a lot of social injustice issues that has a lot of bystanders; for example, there is domestic abuse. Domestic abuse is a serious issue that is happening in the US “on average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States.

Many people in society are praised for their bravery and heroism. A lot of people risk their lives to save and help others when those are in need. The group I choose to discuss is would good Samaritans who try to break up crimes in progress and rescue the intended victims but wind up injured or killed themselves. At some point in our life we are faced with situations where we become a bystander in some way. Not everyone feels the need to intervene due to some circumstances such as the consequences. We live in a society where people are accustomed to viewing the misfortunes of others as entertainment. That is why people tend to record tragic incidents and post them on social media accounts such as YouTube and WorldStarHipHop. Although social

The greater number of bystanders, the less likely it is that anyone of them will help” There are two reasons as to why the bystander effect occurs. Reason one is because of misinterpretations between the bystanders, with multiple people being there scatters the responsibility of helping the person in distress, therefore one person thinks that the other person present will do it and vice-versa resulting in nobody helping out. The second reason being that socially acceptable behaviour, if nobody is helping, should I? Is it socially wrong to help them and could I potentially get hurt helping this person? It’s sad to know that the presence of others discourages individuals to intervene in emergency

If someone were to be in distress, or in harm 's way, any person that were to witness such event, would help the victim, right? Unfortunately, that is not always the case. A commonly asked question is, why is that? Well the answer to that question is what is commonly known as, The Bystander Effect. First of all, a bystander, is a person who is present at an event, or incident, but does not take part. (Dictionary.com) This phenomenon has been pondered and experimented upon for decades. "The term bystander effect refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the number of people present, the less likely people are to help a person in distress.” (Kendra Cherry 1) The bystander effect has taken a toll upon very many people. It is very common amongst individuals across the entire world.”A famous case occurred in the early 1960’s, where Kitty Genovese was attacked and eventually murdered over a forty-five minute period during which thirty-eight people witnessed the attack and did not lift a finger to help in any way.” (Pluralistic ignorance 1) It is sad to think that not one single person would do anything to help this woman. The bystander effect takes away one’s ability to comprehend the humane action in any hostile situation. There have been tremendous amounts of studies and experiments that have been based upon this phenomenon. “Report of this event shocked the city and the nation, and became the impetus for research on the psychological phenomenon that became known as the

According to Aronson, Wilson, and Akert (2013) prosocial behavior is defined as an act performed for the benefit of another person. Altruism is referred to as the want to help another individual even if it means no benefits, or possibly a cost, for the helper (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2013). One particular factor, the bystander effect, has a profound impact on whether or not people help others. The bystander effect states that as the number of people who witness an emergency increases, the likelihood that any of those people will help decreases (Aronson et al., 2013). Processes associated with the bystander effect such as pluralistic ignorance, diffusion of responsibility, and victim effect all impact the likelihood of prosocial