Jury test

[Celista]

The story describes the "crazy" person as crazy, but are we to just assume he's the type of crazy where he could have his actions ruled innocent by reason of insanity? Those kinds of rulings are extremely rare. The word "crazy" in laymen terms doesn't always mean literally insane. I might describe someone who looks disheveled or drugged out as crazy. But such people would/should be sane enough to know that murder is wrong. And such a person would likely be found guilty if they committed a murder.

My point is that the only reason we have to think this guy was crazy is the fact he murdered (plenty of non "crazy" people commit murder all the time) the woman and her earlier claims that he seemed to be crazy (hearsay from a nervous and ashamed woman wandering around at night and alone in an unfamiliar part of town -- and if she was actually certain he was crazy (and not just being paranoid), there is zero chance she would have crossed that bridge). What's to say he wasn't actually a drugged out guy trying to mug her? I'm not going to be quick to say he's not responsible for murdering her until it can actually be proven he wasn't aware of his actions.

Yes. Even if he was "crazy" aka had a significant mental illness, mental illness is actually quite common and not everyone who is mentally ill is violent.

[Dextroden]

Yes. Even if he was "crazy" aka had a significant mental illness, mental illness is actually quite common and not everyone who is mentally ill is violent.

But it is used often as an excuse for unnecessary aggression or even killing, whether the person actually has an illness that can be diagnosed or not.

[Dendrek]

But it is used often as an excuse for unnecessary aggression or even killing, whether the person actually has an illness that can be diagnosed or not.

While it's often used as an "excuse," juries don't often accept it as an alibi. The Insanity plea very rarely holds up in court.

[Dextroden]

While it's often used as an "excuse," juries don't often accept it as an alibi. The Insanity plea very rarely holds up in court.

It's not even insanity please, which are a challenge to aactually get passed. I'm referring to the immediate rush to tag someone that just did something fucked up as mentally ill to safeguard them. While having zero proof of mental deficiency (Unless you want to argue only the mentally ill kill) and no training.

It's always "Mental Illness".

[hrugner]

I think you should read up on GS/Duty to Rescue, there's a little bit of info in the Wikipedia links I provided. Yes there is some leeway but the laws are not intended to protect your duty to not act.

http://volokh.com/2009/11/03/duty-to...port-statutes/ another quick summary of penalties for those who do not act.

Good samaritan laws are very much there to protect someone who decides to act or not to act. Duty to rescue is pretty narrowly defined, even in the links you provided, and wouldn't be important in the case you've created. Reading Volokh's page, it looks even narrower than I thought and your duty seems to end with a 911 call. But in this case "dark and hard to see" leaves them clear in all instances and mentally unstable in most instances, those three chicks or dudes are completely fine here. Just cruise through the exceptions, it's very limited.

[Celista]

It's not even insanity please, which are a challenge to aactually get passed. I'm referring to the immediate rush to tag someone that just did something fucked up as mentally ill to safeguard them. While having zero proof of mental deficiency (Unless you want to argue only the mentally ill kill) and no training.

It's always "Mental Illness".

Well....I would argue that outside manslaughter/crimes of passion/some revenge crimes, a lot/most of the super fucked up premeditated murders are committed by individuals that most likely have some sort of mental handicap or mental illness. Normal people don't commit murder, especially the planned-out and particularly gruesome ones.

- - - Updated - - -

Good samaritan laws are very much there to protect someone who decides to act or not to act. Duty to rescue is pretty narrowly defined, even in the links you provided, and wouldn't be important in the case you've created. Reading Volokh's page, it looks even narrower than I thought and your duty seems to end with a 911 call. But in this case "dark and hard to see" leaves them clear in all instances and mentally unstable in most instances, those three chicks or dudes are completely fine here. Just cruise through the exceptions, it's very limited.

I'd have to look at the laws for health care professionals (because there are special laws for doctors, teachers etc) but depending on the country off-duty physicians are required to act if an individual is in need of care. I do not think this applies to the UK but it does to countries like NZ. Sometimes this is limited to individuals who are already under that physician's care. There is also an ethical duty to act that exists in most cases where there is no legal obligation to act.

https://www.mcnz.org.nz/assets/News-...-emergency.pdf
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...physician.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fear-sued.html

[hrugner]

There is also an ethical duty to act that exists in most cases where there is no legal obligation to act.

This I'll agree with, but someone screaming for help in the dark isn't really the same as seeing someone fall and not helping them. The second is an immediate obvious need for assistance, the first is a good way to lure someone into a mugging.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

In a perfect society fill with Mary Sue's and Gary Stu's who are deities, it's 100% her fault for failing to succeed. This is the end pathway of individual idealism.

In a best society that exists solely to protect its constituents in a logical manner by promoting the needs of the many over the needs of the few, its 100% law enforcement failure for failing to neutralize the crazy person before that person was ever in a situation where they do the wrong thing. The end pathway of communal commitment.

The first case scenario is the best case scenario, but it's debatable if people will ever have enough power to fulfill it. (For example, she should just jet-pack across the bridge or take a hover car, or in American-style carry a weapon more powerful than the crazy person's, as well as training to utilize it better.)

The latter case scenario is what we have to settle upon until we've obtained a better world for the majority of individuals.

And if you'd want to debate the diagnosis of which scenario is better, I'd emphasize the only reason I say the first case scenario is better is because it's literally identical to the premise of Real Life. You're here, on Earth, and you're in total control as long as you can remain aware and capable to the nth degree, where n is the variable of you're prowess.

The first level of nth would be to realize that someone instructing you to dive under a desk during an atomic explosion is fucking lying to you to preserve a sense of generic comfort to anyone dumb enough to believe life isn't difficult. The final level of nth is to realize that their advice is still sound, because even though the situation presented is impossible, you've still increased your chances to survive slightly by hiding under your desk during initial atomic explosion.

From there, the argument becomes whatever you want to define it as, and remaining aware of this is just as taxing as it is valuable, which is not valuable in a situation where you're going to be okay anyway, like traditional life in a first world country, so you might as well relax and spare yourself the tax. Unless you enjoy swimming in the thought pool and exercising brain cells. But in regard to the possibility that people in power enjoy taxing your thoughts this way through their information sharing crafts.

The persuasion goes on and on. Everyone is valid and not valid at the same time, the loudest person will be made right by virtue, etc.

[Ghostmcghosty]

Woman - guilty of adultery. If she wanted a divorce I award her nothing.
Husband - innocent. Nothing wrong with working hard to support your family.
Other man- innocent. It's not up to every other person to confirm the marriage status of their fuck buddy.
In live guy - innocent. He was gonna get played for money anyway. He was a beta orbiter.
Ferryman - innocent. You can't just take anyone's sob story for a free ride.
Murderer - guilty. Sentence depends on whether he was truly insane or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Also , I bet all the people talking about how you are obligated to help someone in need would not lift a finger. Self preservation is real. It's the same response that allows one man with a box cutter to take over a plane of like 300+ people.

Everyone expects someone else to be heroic, but they sure as fuck won't. Plus you add in the possibility of being sued after the fact and you wind up with a generation where people will record you dying for the net, but will never help you.

[Orange Joe]

Actually at least 1 of the three and sometimes all three are required to come to aid depending on country/state laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_S...#United_States

This would require them to be on the spot when she was being murdered. Which from what I gather from the "story" none of them were there.

[Shadowferal]

Actually at least 1 of the three and sometimes all three are required to come to aid depending on country/state laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_S...#United_States

IF there's something actionable going on, and assuming everyone who is listed just happens to be there.

What we have here is "maybe he's crazy...but I'm staying here in my home."

[eschatological]

No one is responsible, if the crazy person is really crazy.

It's not illegal to have an affair, nor is it illegal to refuse service for goods, nor is it illegal to be a shitty lover or friend. Nor is there a legal duty to help someone, unless the danger is clear and present, and even then, those kind of duties are controversial.

Morally, the woman has moral blame because she's having an affair (as does her lover), but that "sin" so to speak is entirely separate from her murder. She could have been across the river shopping. Her moral "transgression" didn't lead to her death, unless you believe in a very rigid form of karma.