Non-Intervention in Society

Introduction

In the scholarly peer reviewed journal, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, as stated by Williams and Stewart, “Since the early 1990s, there has been a significant need for humanitarian intervention [on countries welfare], a need that will likely continue well into the future… Unfortunately, despite the importance of humanitarian intervention, the international community is less likely to undertake meaningful and effective humanitarian interventions in the coming years.” (Williams & Stewart, 2008) 

This sheds a different light on non-intervention; it shows the side of non-intervention that is commonly overlooked. It is overlooked because it deals with countries instead of people who are involved in everyday crime. However, some believe that by knowing how this side handles problems it will help the average individual understand how to handle the same situation but to a lesser degree. The quote stated above indicates that countries have the same issues as the general public does when it comes to intervention. Most countries do not want to take the risks that come with the intervention and this also holds true with most people. Although, this is just one of the many reasons as to why a country does not intervene, it shows that a countries reasoning can be closely related to a persons. Countries along with people have to figure out whether or not an intervention will help the issue or only make it worse. That is the ultimate decision. 

This paper’s aim is to show why people do not intervene on crime, what the result of non-intervention is, how the public has tried to make the decision to intervene on a crime easier for a person and what, overall, the result of non-intervention is. All of this will be shown through various models and with information from a high profile case that dealt with the issues of non-intervention. 

High Expectations

When a crime is committed the general public often cannot understand why the criminal acted the way that he or she did. Often times an excuse is made to rationalize why it happened, then the justice system administers a punishment to the criminal and soon after the public forgets that a crime ever occurred. This process alone shows that it has become human nature to forget bad memories and only remember the better ones; by employing this instinct it shows how adults and children survive through life. By the time a person is an adult he or she should know the difference between right and wrong and there are high expectations to uphold this. When the high expectations are not met only disappointment can follow. The disappointment may be major or minor but overall, it is still effective and damaging to a person. A major example of these high expectations followed by disappointment can be seen in the David Cash case. 

David Cash

On May 25, 1997 a seven-year-old girl’s life would come to abrupt end while her father was playing the slot machines at the Primadonna Resort and Casino in Primm, Nevada. Two teenagers, Jeremy Strohmeyer and David Cash, entered the bathroom around 3:47am. Soon David Cash would see his friend, Jeremy Strohmeyer, locked in a stall with a girl named Sherrice Iverson. Cash only had a fleeting response to intervene between the two; he tapped his friend on the head and ultimately knocked his hat off but Cash soon gave up and went for a walk when he saw this did not work. About 22 minutes later, Strohmeyer came out and found Cash, Strohmeyer immediately confessed to the crime of molestation and murder but Cash can only think of “one question: Had the little girl been aroused?” (Booth, 2001) By the time of 5am the little girl’s mangled body was found but both teenagers were already on their way to Las Vegas. 

Unfortunately, this is one of many crimes that occur annually in the United States. And although, the David Cash case was highly publicized, it was not the only crime that went unnoticed, without help or lacked intervention by a bystander. Another case, according to H.M Malm happened  “In New York, Kitty Denovese was repeatedly beaten and ultimately murdered in an apartment square. Thirty-eight persons heard her screams or witnessed portions of the attack, but none attempted to stop it, not even by calling the police.” (Malm, 1995) Some people would find it hard to believe that no one out of thirty-eight people called the police. It is hard to understand why someone would not intervene, especially if it meant saving another person’s life. Most people believe if he or she were placed into a situation similar to the ones stated above, he or she would definitely intervene. However, most are never placed into those situations so one will never know what he or she would actually do. 

Why people do not intervene on these crimes?

David Cash, then 19, stated in an interview done by the television program 60 Minutes that, "I’m not going to get upset over somebody else's life. I just worry about myself first. I'm not going to lose sleep over somebody else's problems." Unbelievably, Cash showed no remorse for his actions and only proved to show the public that he is ultimately a selfish person. His own selfishness ruled his own life and made it the reason he did not intervene. Later in the same interview he also states, 

"I have a lot of remorse toward the Iverson family. It was a very tragic event...The simple fact remains I don't know this little girl ... I don't know people in Panama or Africa who are killed every day, so I can't feel remorse for them. The only person I know is Jeremy Strohmeyer". 

It can be noted that Cash uses the girl’s anonymousity as a reason to why he did not intervene on the crime. Although what Cash did was despicable and uncharacteristic for most human beings it does show another side of the matter; people are hindered by anonymousity and overall, their selfishness makes the person care less about the victim’s life in comparison to his or her own.

In other less publicized cases, such as Kitty Denovese, the reader can make his or her own assumptions as to why no one out of the thirty-eight people who saw the crime intervened. 

Anyone who witnesses a crime and does not intervene obviously has his or her own personal beliefs as to why they did not. People often judge others when it is found out that they did not intervene and the public often sees non-intervention as a default in the person’s moral obligations. Some even go so far to believe that if a person does not intervene in a crime it is proof enough that you contributed to the crime and that the person should face charges as well, this perception was seen in the David Cash case. However, even though both cases are a horrible representation of human behavior some positive aspects came out of both. 

Sherrice Iverson Bill & Bad Samaritan Laws

The murder of Sherrice Iverson was disheartening but some positive events did come out of the destruction. On September 18th, 2000 Governor Gray Davis of California signed a ‘Sherrice Iverson’ bill and according to LA Times, “it[‘s] a crime to witness the sexual assault of a minor without notifying police… [f]ailure to notify a peace officer of a sexual attack or physical assault on anyone under the age of 14 is now a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a year in jail.” (LA Times, 2000)

In addition to this bill, other states took an initiative and decided to enact bad samaritan laws. Bad samaritan laws obligate a person to help or assist another person that may be becoming a victim of a crime. Overall, these laws give punishments on the basis that people who do not intervene on a crime deserve the punishment because he or she is lacking the moral obligation or fiber. Most states have bad samaritan laws in place. In Connecticut and Alaska, these laws protect individuals (victim) from liability based on negligence if they have received first aid from a specific organization such as firefighters, police officers, ambulance members, ski patrol, railroad personnel and etc. By instituting these laws, it is in hope that more people will intervene and he or she will not be limited by any legal fears that may accompany the decision.

What is Non- Intervention a Result of?

Non-Interventionism can be the result of many things. It is open to interpretation among individuals and can be led into debate for many years. However, in one supporting statement non-interventionism can be a result of delinquency and opportunity. Delinquency becomes supported under non-interventionism since most criminals know that an average anonymous person will not intervene on a crime. This non-intervention causes most criminals to pursue his or her criminal careers because he or she knows that they are unlikely of getting apprehended. By not intervening, people are subconsciously supporting delinquency. It almost gives a justification and tells the public that it is 

“ok” to commit crimes. This opportunity is also supported since people are opportunistic individuals. People are always looking to benefit themselves and do not always take other individuals into account. By not taking other individuals into account, the person avoids most dangerous situations such as a robbery; the person who does not intervene would believe that intervention would only be negative and the person would not intervene since they cannot see any benefit by doing so. Sadly, most people will act on that instinct. 

After noticing that non-interventionism can be a result of delinquency and opportunity a few theorists can be interpreted as supporting it. According to Moyer (2001) these theorists were Albert Cohen, Richard Cloward & Lloyd Ohlin and Ruth Cavan. All of these theorists had his or her own ideas regarding the issue but certain aspects of his or her work can be related to why people choose not to intervene. 

Cohen believed that every person’s success in life was based on his or her class. He believed, according to Moyer (2001),  “middle class home is more likely to train the child to compete successfully for status…” (p. 69) This shows that there is a great difference in values based on class especially the middle and working classes.

“This conflict between the middle class and working class values leads to the reaction formation that Cohen claims is manifested… as delinquency” (p. 69) Due to the norms a person is more likely to be delinquent and because of another persons norms and values they may be less like to intervene. 

Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin both supported delinquency and even have research published, Delinquency and Opportunity (Moyer, 2001). They commonly state that everyone is socialized to want goals of economic success but that person is not willing to put his or her life in danger to intervene on a crime. These people want to personally succeed more than he or she wants to get involved. It is not worth it economically to get involved. 

Lastly, Ruth Cavan stated that there were contra-cultures that were built up around the disregard for norms. By growing up in a culture that does not have what the general public would consider as acceptable norms then this would cause someone to hold back on intervening. (An example of this would be a person who was brought up stealing. That person would eventually be so use to stealing that he or she would not see it as a crime. That individual would not report a robbery if they saw it happening.) These contra-culture norms affect how people can perceive right and wrong. Cavan also believed that because of these conflicting values it became threatening to anyone who is an outsiders of that specific culture. 

There are many reasons as to why people do not intervene, some are specific and some are blatant. Although, there are so many Figure 2 shows two possible reasons as to why people do not intervene, delinquency and opportunity. There are crimes that do end because of intervention except most do not and it doesn’t happen as often as people would hope for.

Conclusion

In crime, non-intervention can happen at any time and at any place. The situation may be as simple as someone whose trying to steal a candy bar or it can be as complicated as someone trying to rape or murder someone. If this is the case, then why is it that people do not intervene? Leading theorist believe that it is a result of delinquency and opportunity, others would say it is a by-product of personal beliefs, people who fear their own safety above others, or even the simplicity of inconvenience. Even though there are many reasons as to why, most know that he or she would not intervene unless it was absolutely necessary. When the general public found out about the David Cash case and his choice of non-intervention on a crime of molestation and murder people began to see Cash as a criminal and wanted to imprison him for his actions. This could not happen due to insufficient laws, however, laws soon came into place. Now, most states have bad samaritan laws, which obligate a person to help or assist another person that may be becoming a victim of a crime. These laws give out punishments to these people because they believe that a person is lacking the moral obligation to intervene. The laws also want to eliminate any legal fears that a person may have that may hinder their decision to intervene. Due to the enactment of these laws, it was in hopes that it will make the decision of intervention easier for people to make and that some crimes may even be prevented. 

Booth, C. (2001, June 24) The bad samaritan. Retrieved October 17, 2009, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,139892,00.html

LA Times. (Sept. 19, 2000) ‘Sherrice iverson’ bill becomes law. Retrieved October 16, 2009, from http://articles.latimes.com/2000/sep/19/local/me-23477.

Malm, H.M. (1995) Liberalism, bad samaritan law, and legal paternalism. Journal of Ethics,106, 4-27.

Moyer, I. (2001). Criminological Theories: traditional and nontraditional voices and themes. London: Sage Publications.

Waller. (1999) Bad Samaritan. [Tv Series] California: Columbia Broadcasting Station.

Williams, P.R & Stewart, M.E. (2008) Humanitarian intervention: the new missing link in the fight to prevent crimes against humanity and genocide? Journal of Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 40(1/2), 97-110.