APA Newsletters

Fall 2000
Volume 00, Number 1

Newsletter on Philosophy and Law

Recent Law Review Articles of Interest

Previous Article | Index | Next Article

Volokh, Eugene. "Duties to Rescue and the Anticooperative Effects of Law"
88 Georgetown Law Journal 105-114 (1999).

The author presents a consequentialist argument against "duty to rescue or report" statutes. He concentrates on laws creating a duty to report crimes, on the ground that most such statutes create only a duty to report. The argument is based on effects on human behavior that such statutes may have but are unanticipated by those who frame them. On the one hand, the positive effects of such statutes is likely to be small: few of those who fail to rescue or report seem likely to be swayed by such laws to voluntarily come forth, especially considering the fact that such laws are very infrequently enforced. On the other hand, a certain negative effect can be substantial. Those Bad Samaritans who would have second thoughts and volunteer information tardily ("Delayed Samaritans") and those who would answer questions truthfully only if asked ("Passive Samaritans") will have a strong motive not to cooperate, since under a ‘duty to report’ statute (at least if it includes a timeliness clause, as they typically do) they have already committed an offense, one which will come to light if they cooperate now. One might remedy this defect of the statute by introducing a "second chance" clause, under which one escapes criminal liability if one supplies information when asked for it, but this brings the statute close to the status quo, which includes duties to cooperate with investigations but makes them contingent upon being asked to cooperate. These arguments have much more limited application to statutes requiring people to aid victims of disasters.

Previous Article | Index | Next Article

APA Newsletters

Fall 2000 Volume 00, Number 1

Fall 2000
Volume 00, Number 1