December 2008 Archive

O.J. Simpson was sentenced last Friday to at least 16 years to life for armed robbery in a Las Vegas hotel back in 2007.

In O.J. Simpson’s prior murder trial of his wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman, he was found not guilty in criminal court but was found liable for both their deaths in a civil suit some years later. He later had the obscene audacity to publish a book entitled "If I did it" where he basically described his crime.

Fred Goldman, the father of Ron, said: "If our efforts for all these years of pushing him drove him to commit armed robbery in Vegas, great! This monster is where he belongs — behind bars."

Many believe that O.J.’s recent sentence is justice finally served.

In an ideal justice system, only the guilty are convicted and only the innocent are found "not guilty." In reality, we know that it is not always the case. In our legal system one is presumed innocent until proven guilty and it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the guilt. Defending the rights of the accused is fundamental in any democratic society even if some, with money, are able to "beat the system" and "get away with murder."

The alternative to our system of justice is horrific. It is practiced by totalitarian regimes that imprison, maim and execute without "due process."

Most people in our society would rather see someone guilty be let go than to see an innocent condemned.

It is maybe a consolation to known that being found "not guilty" does not remove guilt in the conscience of those that did commit the crime.

Someone defined ethics as doing the right thing (or not doing the wrong thing) when no one is watching. In reality there is always someone watching.

Our conscience is watching!

As Winston Churchill once said:

"The only guide to man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor."

The New York Times in an article that appeared on Tuesday November 25th tells the story of Abraham Biggs, a 19-year old community-college student who posted a suicidal note on the Internet. In his post, he indicated the drug cocktail he intended to take to end his life. Many responded to him, some even encouraged him to take the cocktail while others tried to dissuade him. Abraham then went on live stream video and approximately 180 people watched him take the cocktail and then die. The police was finally called but only when some viewers saw him stop breathing. It was too late.

Joshua Perper, the chief medical examiner for Broward county where Abraham lived said: "If somebody threatens suicide or attempts suicide, it’s never a joke, it is always requires attention. It’s basically a cry for help."

Why did it take so long for people to do "the right thing?"

Some people honestly believed that the whole thing was staged and not real and therefore did not respond. Others might have thought that Abraham was exercising his freedom in taking his own life. But how can we be sure that he was in full possession of his mental faculties and responsible in his act? It was later revealed that Abraham Biggs did suffer from bipolar disorder.

I am sure that some believed that someone else had called the police very much like in the Kitty Genovese murder that happened in 1963 where dozens of neighbors witnessed the attack but did nothing. This phenomenon, also known as the "bystander effect", establishes that individuals are less likely to offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely proportional to the number of bystanders.

French law imposes severe penalties for the voluntary abstention to carry assistance to a person in danger. Article 223-6 of the Penal code states: that whoever can prevent by its immediate action, without risk for him or to a third party either a crime or an offence against the integrity of a person, and does not, can be punished by five years of imprisonment and 100,000 Euros.

Under US law, one cannot be prosecuted for non-assistance of a person in danger unless there is an obligation of responsibility to the person in danger, such as a physician-patient or parent-child responsibility.

What would you have done had you been made aware of the dramatic situation? Ethics very often goes beyond the law. We are to act responsibly dictated by our conscience. We should always remember that, after all, we are "our brother’s (and sister’s) keeper."