Reference no: EM133538956

Question

In the United States, the general rule is that people who witness a crime or accident have no legal duty to rescue the victim - people can just walk past without any legal consequences, even though they of course would have a moral duty to stop and provide help. Vermont is one state that follows a different path and does impose a legal duty to rescue those in peril. Many countries in Europe, Latin America, and Africa also impose a legal duty to rescue those in peril.

If you were elected as representative in your state's legislature, and the issue of whether to impose a legal duty to rescue arose, would you vote to follow the lead of Vermont and countries that do impose an affirmative legal duty to rescue individuals in peril? Or would you vote to retain the "no duty to rescue" rule in effect in most states? Would imposing a legal duty to rescue encourage people to step up and help each other instead of walking by without lending a hand when help is clearly needed? Would it be a good step to making us a kinder society?