A failure to prevent crime should it be criminal?

Social Solidarity and Sentencing Disparities Between Ethnic Groups: The Case of Hit‐and‐Run Traffic Offenses

“…Second, in imposing a legal duty to come to the aid of endangered persons, the legal system recognizes moral distinctions, such as the distinction between a legal duty toward those who have special relationships with the defendant (duties of parents toward their children) and a duty to come to the aid of strangers (Good Samaritan laws). In general, punishments for violations of the latter type are more lenient (Gur‐Arye ). In sentencing hit‐and‐run traffic offenders, judges appear to internalize those distinctions and to apply, at times inadvertently, parallel distinctions embodied in the notion of in‐group‐focused morality, according to which members of a social group feel morally more obliged to come to the aid of in‐group members than to the aid of “strangers” (Gilead et al ; Janoff‐Bulman et al ).…”

“…The importance attached to social solidarity by different legal systems varies. Good Samaritan laws that impose a duty on bystanders to render aid to persons in danger are relatively rare in common‐law systems; civil‐law systems, on the other hand, are more disposed to imposing a general Good Samaritan duty (Gur‐Arye ). However, in specific contexts, imposing a legal duty to come to the aid of persons in danger is more universal.…”