Off the Cuff / My Other Journal

Bystander Responsibility

According to psychologists, if many people are around, it is less likely for the bystanders to help someone in trouble. This finding surprised me, but I can understand why people would go into a passing-the-buck mentality in an unsavory situation. Chances are they might be assessing the situation, and probably, aligning their own reactions with what the others are doing. In addition, subconsciously, they may think they only have the smaller percentage of responsibility than a 100% of it, should they have been the only one present.

I believe we all have a duty to help each other, but that help depends on the situation at hand. If a mother is telling her child, “No, I can afford to buy another bar of candy,” and the child is bawling, it is not up to me to intervene. Even if I were to believe a parent shouldn't say no to a child, I should not interfere, because I would be acting from my own highly subjective standpoint. Should there be a child-abuse situation, however, I think I would have to do something about it.

One of the first steps in anyone's decision to help another depends on the recognition that if someone is indeed in need of help. What if we think the situation needs our help, when it doesn’t? What if someone is beating on someone else and we rush in without looking around to spot the movie cameras? We would cost quite a bit of money to the filmmakers, wouldn’t we?

Another factor in the decision to help is the bystander's capability. Would he be able to stop a crime? Or if he did, how would he go about it? For example, if twenty big guys are beating up one person and the only witness goes to help the victim, he’ll end up being beaten himself. In this case, the best option would be to call the police.

Then there is another problem with the present day customs of a society, as the understanding and the norms usually change in time, and according to place. For example in the earlier decades of the twentieth century, spanking children was the norm. Nowadays, if a child is being spanked in public and the people are around to see that, you can be sure, someone will alert the authorities. As an aside, I’ll have to add that I always felt spanking to be very wrong. A parent can express dissatisfaction in other ways.

Now, another scenario: One member of a couple is being abusive to the other, and you intervene. What if both of them turn around and tell you to mind your own business? It has happened, and it is not unusual for the victim-spouse to defend his/her mate.

But what about if you are by the shore and you see a child splashing in the water wildly? You might take it upon yourself to save him, even if he wasn’t really drowning and even if you end up looking like a fool. It is better to help in such a case than feel bad about it later.

Then there are medical emergencies. How can one get involved if he or she doesn’t know how to help? But he still can. He still can get, call, or look for help.

Most of us think of ourselves as decent, helpful people who wouldn’t turn their back on someone in obvious trouble. Still some people, even those who think highly of themselves, hightail it in a second in order not to get involved. It is understandable that we put ourselves first, in any situation, but how are we going to feel about ourselves later, if we saw a murder or any kind of victimization happening and did nothing? Just think of the feelings of guilt we’ll have to live with if we don’t interfere.

--------

Do bystanders have a responsibility to intervene when someone is in trouble? Why or Why not?