1 Luong

Caitlyn Luong
Mrs. Housepian
English 2H; Period 5
21 January 2015
Once a Good Samaritan...
OnIn one hand, you hold the no duty rule. This allows you to have the freedom to pass
by a dying person and turn your head the other way. It is enforced to prevent people from further
hurting an injured person in a crisis and to avoid any sueing. OnIn the other hand, you hold the
Good Samaritans law. This law states that if you see a dying person while passing by, then
you should do everything in your power to help them. If you choose not to, then you will be
fined. So which is morally correct? Which would hold more ethical responsibility? In Jay Sterling
Silvers article, Can the Law Make Us Be Decent?, he describes that the no duty rule allows
bystanders to go unpunished when they do not render any help in a life threatening situation.
He then puts out the idea that the Good Samaritan law, regardless of its punishments when
not followed, would better benefit the community and be the ethicallyethicalyl responsible path
towards altruism. The Good Samaritan law should be enforced for individuals that hold the
capability to provide assistance yet choose to neglect those in need of aid, so that they may be
better motivated and learn from their punishments.
If the Good Samaritan law was put into place, then citizens would be able to overcome
legal and internal obstacles that come in between them and someone in need. Without it, if you
were to, by accident, injure the victim, then you would be sued. However, if you stood by and
never entered the disaster zone, then you would be safe from lawyers. In the article, If
Decency Doesnt, then Law Should Make Us Good Samaritans, Lisa Bloom and Gloria Allred,
an American civil rights attornies attorney and lawyers, inform that, Under American Law,
liability generally exists for action, not inaction (Allred and Bloom). This law allows there to be
benefit in not helping and risky consequences if you do lend a hand. It discourages ethical

2 Luong
responsibility because it creates another obstacle for people who would want to help. Money is
a tight resource in todays community, and avoiding situations where you could suffer financially
would be in a persons best interest. The Good Samaritan law would provide protection against
liability and motivate people, legally, to take action. Lawyers are not the only complication in
rescuing or assisting people. The attorney and lawyer also express some internal and
emotional rationalizations about why people ignore the need of others: The real reason people
dont reach out is because they feel disconnected from strangers in need (Allred and Bloom). If
the bystanders have no emotional connection to the victim then they feel uncomfortable or less
obligated to help. With the Good Samaritan law, people would not have any emotional
circumstances and gain new motivation to help them practice altruism. The effect would
eventually take place in a persons mindset and influence them to have the best guide to
emergency aid, ethical responsibility, and not just because the government forced them to. The
author, Jay Sterling Silver, admits that being told a behavior is illegal makes it also seem
immoral (Silver). However, he exemplifies that that is the more moral path because in the long
run, the Good Samaritan law would eventually help motivate people to help out of altruism.
Regardless of any legal business and emotional appeal, the law of being a good
Samaritan would better the community and create a safer environment for its citizens. Silver
references stories of young women in their twenties being murdered and raped while everyone
looked the other way because of the non duty rule. There were no consequences so why
bother risking your own safety. This promotes more events like this to happen if no one is there
to stop these people. Both Allred and Bloom agree that, We would all gain the benefits of a
stronger and safer community(Allred and Bloom). Dangerous situations can be prevented and
people will feel more confident and secure walking down the streets in their own area. In
Colombia, there was a massive volcanic eruption that wiped out an entire town. According to
the article, Ill-Equipt Rescuers Dig Out Volcano Victims: Aid Slow to Reach Colombian Town, the
author, Graham, reports the inaction of the government when they knew of the danger: The

3 Luong
government knew the volcano might erupt and when it did, officials failed to react fast enough to
evacuate the town (Graham 4). The town was surrounded by mountains and valleys, so
getting out was difficult. The government saw that it would be unlikely they could save the entire
town and decided to accept their fate. If the Good Samaritan law was placed in the country as
well, then the government would have had to strive and do everything they could to save their
people and many lives could have been saved. It would enhance the trust their people had in
the government and make it a town that could depend on its higher power. By punishing those
who stand by and watch, it will give people the motivation to save others and therefore prevent
disasters from spreading and occurring too frequently.
The punishment of bystanders who choose not to aid those in need should be enforced
so that our communities can become a safer place and so that our people can get back to the
true roots of altruism by eliminating the legal and emotional complications. If you were that
dying person, that victim, that person stuck in the mud with no possible way out on your own,
you would want someone to save you. The ending of a persons life sometimes comes sooner
than they like, such as Princess Diana. Think of all the possibilities this law could bring. The
future generation would be able to flourish with altruism.
Rubric rating submitted on: 1/30/2016, 8:44:03 AM by c.smart@ggusd.net

Overall
Description of
what each
score looks
like; this row is
for
informational
purposes only.
See YOUR
score below.
Your score:

A 5 essay
demonstrates
a clear
competence in
writing. It may
have some
errors, but they
are not serious
enough to
distract or
confuse the
reader. (A 6
essay is
superior writing

A 4 essay
demonstrates
proficient
writing. It may
have some
errors that
distract the
reader, but
they do not
significantly
obscure
meaning.

A 3 essay
demonstrates
developing
competence,
but is flawed in
some
significant
way(s).

A 2 essay is
seriously
flawed.

A 1 essay
demonstrates
fundamental
deficiencies in
writing skills.

4 Luong

which meets
the criteria of a
Score of 5, and
is especially
distinctive in its
exceptionally
coherent and
well-developed
argument,
thorough
development
of analysis of
specifics
related to the
prompt and
text(s), and
impressive
control of
language.)
Statement of
Purpose/Focus
(a-b)
Your score: 3

(a) Claim is
clear, focused,
and
maintained. [if
applicable: (b)
Alternate or
opposing
claim(s) are
adequately
addressed.]

(a) Claim is
clear, and for
the most part
maintained,
though some
loosely
relevant
material may
be present. [if
applicable:
(b)Alternate or
opposing
claim(s) are
introduced.]

(a) Claim may

be clearly
focused, but is
flawed in some
significant
way(s). [if
applicable: (b)
Alternate or
opposing
claim(s) are
unclear or
unfocused.]

(a) Claim is
unfocused
and/or
insufficiently
sustained. [if
applicable:
(b)Alternate or
opposing
claim(s) are
unclear or not
present.]

(a) Claim may

be confusing
or ambiguous.
[if applicable:
(b) Alternate or
opposing
claim(s) are
not present.]

Organization
(c-e)
Your score: 4

(c) Consistent
use of
transitional
strategies. (d)
Logical
progression of
ideas from
beginning to
end. (e)
Effective
introduction
and conclusion
for audience

(c) Adequate
use of
transitional
strategies with
some variety.
(d) Adequate
progression of
ideas from
beginning to
end. (e)
Adequate
introduction
and

(c) Inconsistent
use of basic
transitional
strategies with
little variety.
(d) Uneven
progression of
ideas from
beginning to
end. (e)
Introduction
and conclusion
are present.

(c) Limited use

of basic
transitional
strategies with
little or no
variety. (d)
Unclear
progression of
ideas from
beginning to
end. (e)
Introduction
and conclusion

(c) Few or no
transitional
strategies are
evident. (d)
Has a major
drift in the
progression of
ideas/complete
ly off topic. (e)
Introduction
and/or
conclusion
may not be

5 Luong

and purpose.

conclusion.

are attempted
but insufficient.

present.

Elaboration of
Evidence (f-g)
Your score: 4

(f) Relevant
evidence from
a sufficient
amount of
sources is
effectively
integrated with
appopriate
citation. (g)
Effective use
of elaborative
techniques
("means/matte
rs").

(f) Relevant
evidence from
a sufficent
amount of
sources is
integrated,
though
integration
may be slightly
awkward,
general, or
imprecise. (g)
Adequate use
of some
elaborative
techniques.
("means/matte
rs")

(f) Evidence
from sources is
weakly and
awkwardly
integrated and
citations, if
present, are
inconsistent.
(g) Marginal or
inconsistent
use of
elabortive
techniques
("means/matte
rs").

(f) Evidence
from sources,
although
included, is
insufficient and
inappropriately
integrated or
cited. (g)
Elaborative
techniques are
weak.

(f) Use of
evidence from
sources is
minimal,
absent, in
error, or
irrelevant. (g)
Elaborative
techniques are
absent.

Language,
Vocabulary (h)
& Style
Your score: 4

(h) Proper use

of academic
and domainspecific
vocabulary is
appropriate for
the audience
and purpose.
Proper voice,
tone, and
perspective is
used. Distinct
writing style is
used.

(h) Use of
academic and
domainspecific
vocabulary is
generally
appropriate for
the audience
and purpose.
Mostly the
proper voice,
tone, and
perspective is
used. A
distinct writing
style is
attempted.

(h) Use of
academic and
domainspecific
vocabulary
may at times
be
inappropriate
for the
audience and
purpose.
Voice, tone,
and
perspective
may be
inappropriate
or inconsistent.
Writing style is
vague or
overly
simplistic.

(h) Use of
academic and
domainspecific
vocabulary is
largely
inappropriate
for the
audience and
purpose.
Voice, tone,
and
perspective is
inappropriate
or causes
major
inconsistencies
in the paper.
Simplistic
writing style
limits
effectiveness
of paper.

(h) Uses
limited
academic
language or
domainspecific
vocabulary and
has little sense
of audience
and purpose.
Voice, tone,
and/or
perspective is
confusingly
inconsistent or
inappropriate.
Writing style is
unrecognizable
.

Conventions (ij)
Your score: 4

(i)
Demonstrates
some

(i) Some errors

in grammar,
usage, and

(i) Frequent
errors in
grammar and

(i) Frequent
errors in
grammar,

(i) Errors in
grammar,
usage, and

6 Luong

syntatical
variety, and
has limited or
no errors in
grammar,
usage, and
sentence
formation. (j)
Standard use
of punctuation,
capitalization,
and spelling.

Comments:
4

sentence
formation may
be present, but
no systematic
pattern of
errors is
displayed. (j)
Some errors in
punctuation,
capitalization,
and spelling.

usage may
obscure
meaning. (j)
Frequent
errors in
punctuation,
capitalization,
and spelling.

usage, and
sentence
formation
obscure
meaning. (j)
Frequent
errors and/or
limited use of
punctuation,
capitalization,
and spelling.

sentence
formation are
frequent and
severe, and
meaning is
often
obscured. (j)
Inappropriate
or incorrect
use of
punctuation,
capitalization,
and spelling.