But libertarians oppose the laws, and
some legal experts argue they may not be effective. David Hyman, a law professor at Georgetown University, and Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, say
the laws aren’t likely to change the behavior of people who witness emergencies and, if they do, the consequences of having a law in place would outweigh the benefits.
Imposing a duty to rescue, Hyman said, may actually make situations more deadly by compelling people to act in often perilous circumstances. And
the laws may actually make it less likely that people who witness criminal acts cooperate with police, Volokh said. If a witness knows the law requires them to immediately report what they see, and they don’t, they may be less likely to come forward later out of fear that they will be prosecuted.
People are rarely, if ever, prosecuted or sued for breaking these laws, said Christopher Roberts, an associate law professor at the University of Minnesota.
This is partly because there are so few instances in which people see someone in an emergency and have the ability to help, but choose not to, Hyman said. He researched emergencies across the U.S. over a 10-year period, from 1994 to 2004, and
identified one or two “non rescues” a year on average, compared to about 263 rescues in risky situations and about a thousand non-risky rescues. “Rescue is the rule, even if it isn’t the law,” he said.
Prosecuting people under the current duty to rescue laws is difficult, according to opponents. It’s also hard to define who laws apply to, and when.
The laws create a slippery slope, said Walter Block, an economist at Loyola University New Orleans. “If I have an obligation to toss you a life raft — if you are starving, do I have an obligation to feed you?”