Supreme Court Decisions
The ‘no duty to rescue rule’ asserts that if one does not bear the responsibility of placing another person in danger/risk, he/she does not have the duty to assist them even though it would cost little or nothing to rescue the life in danger. The material is about a ruling by a Supreme Court judge in New York who cleared two transportation workers who did nothing to offer help except calling their seniors when a woman was being raped at their facility. The victim was a graduate student aged 26 years old who was raped over and over again with full knowledge of the train’s clerk and other employees. This case was based on the belief that the transit workers were not responsible for helping. That was the obligation of the police. These employees had the moral obligation of helping or seeking extra help to put an end to the attack. Although they held no legal obligation, their actions displayed a clear absence of humanity and boldness.
The ‘no duty to rescue rule’ was previously applied to deliver the popular ruling in the case (Yania v Bigan), which involves one man watching another person drown without acting to save his life. Despite the fact that Bigan challenged Yania to get into the water, the judge asserted that this meant nothing. The provocations were directed towards a grown-up who knew what he was putting his life in danger. The meager reality that Bigan had witnessed Yania being in a situation of danger put on him only a moral, but not a legal obligation/duty to help him lest Bigan was legally accountable, wholly or partly, for putting Yania in the dangerous situation.
The author of this material is trying to show the controversies associated with various laws and famous court rulings in the US. The rule applied in both cases has received a lot of criticism because many humans have the duty to protect and help one another in times of danger. Many countries and US feminists have also criticized the rule and call for it to be abolished. Many people believe that calling the police is enough while they watch the victim die helplessly or get harmed. I do not agree with the judges’ rulings and believe that the rule should be completely eradicated.
In the case of Plessy Vs. Ferguson, the law, upheld segregation where railways carriages were to be separated for whites and people of color. Homer Plessy was arrested and convicted for sitting in a whites-only section in a car. I do not agree with the court’s ruling since it encouraged more discrimination based on race. The law should not have been there in the first place to promote equal treatment for all races. In the case of Roe Vs. Wade, a pregnant lady (Roe) filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the criminal abortion rules in Texas. The law prohibited the procurement or attempting of abortion other than on a medical basis to save a woman’s life. The court made a declaration that the abortion laws void as ill-defined and over broadly infringing since Roe and Hallford brought forward justiciable controversies. I do not agree with the judge’s ruling since there is no justification for abortion. The court, however, did well in declaring Does’ complain as not justiciable. Being not ready for pregnancy and contraceptive failure should not be used as a basis to justify abortion.