Nbadan
10-20-2005, 03:30 AM
If a woman who cannot swim leaps into a rain-swollen creek and saves the life of a friend's toddler, she is a hero. If instead she yells for help to the child's father, she's a typical mortal.
What she's not is a criminal. Falling short of heroism is no crime. Making it one, as occurred recently in Blair County, sets a dangerous precedent.
The Blair County district attorney prosecuted a nonswimmer, Susan Newkirk, for endangering the welfare of a child after she summoned a 2-year-old's father to rescue him rather than leaping herself into South Poplar Run after Hurricane Ivan turned it into a torrent in September 2004.
A jury convicted Ms. Newkirk in July and a judge sentenced her to jail this month for a year and a half.
Blair District Attorney Dave Gorman said Ms. Newkirk had a duty to try to save the child and insisted it was irrelevant that she couldn't swim because two other people, including a nonswimmer, attempted a rescue. Apparently it is irrelevant to Mr. Gorman that they failed. The child died.
Post Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05293/591657.stm)
More on story at this link.
David Herring, a professor of child welfare law at the University of Pittsburgh, said there is no Good Samaritan law in Pennsylvania.
"You can't ask them to have to sacrifice their own lives," Mr. Herring said. "That's quite a stretch to impose that duty on her."
He called the case against Ms. Newkirk an "aggressive prosecution."
"The father's the one the law should be holding responsible," he said.
Mr. Reffner was charged, but he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge -- reckless endangerment. He was offered probation to testify against Ms. Newkirk. The prosecution, however, never called Mr. Reffner to the stand. Mr. Gorman said his testimony wasn't necessary.
Post Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05278/582741.stm)
The second link explains that the father was charged too, pled to reckless endangerment, and testified against the woman. Whom he was dating. It is well-settled law in America that no person has a duty to risk their life to save another. I'm not talking about people who are paid to do that, and therefore have a contractual duty to respond. I'm talking about citizens. However, since the woman was apparently supposed to be watching the kid, did she have a moral obligation to risk her life to save the child? Apparently, the law thought so.
What she's not is a criminal. Falling short of heroism is no crime. Making it one, as occurred recently in Blair County, sets a dangerous precedent.
The Blair County district attorney prosecuted a nonswimmer, Susan Newkirk, for endangering the welfare of a child after she summoned a 2-year-old's father to rescue him rather than leaping herself into South Poplar Run after Hurricane Ivan turned it into a torrent in September 2004.
A jury convicted Ms. Newkirk in July and a judge sentenced her to jail this month for a year and a half.
Blair District Attorney Dave Gorman said Ms. Newkirk had a duty to try to save the child and insisted it was irrelevant that she couldn't swim because two other people, including a nonswimmer, attempted a rescue. Apparently it is irrelevant to Mr. Gorman that they failed. The child died.
Post Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05293/591657.stm)
More on story at this link.
David Herring, a professor of child welfare law at the University of Pittsburgh, said there is no Good Samaritan law in Pennsylvania.
"You can't ask them to have to sacrifice their own lives," Mr. Herring said. "That's quite a stretch to impose that duty on her."
He called the case against Ms. Newkirk an "aggressive prosecution."
"The father's the one the law should be holding responsible," he said.
Mr. Reffner was charged, but he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge -- reckless endangerment. He was offered probation to testify against Ms. Newkirk. The prosecution, however, never called Mr. Reffner to the stand. Mr. Gorman said his testimony wasn't necessary.
Post Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05278/582741.stm)
The second link explains that the father was charged too, pled to reckless endangerment, and testified against the woman. Whom he was dating. It is well-settled law in America that no person has a duty to risk their life to save another. I'm not talking about people who are paid to do that, and therefore have a contractual duty to respond. I'm talking about citizens. However, since the woman was apparently supposed to be watching the kid, did she have a moral obligation to risk her life to save the child? Apparently, the law thought so.