Thursday, November 30, 2017

[igjeepkh] Good Samaritan Laws versus prosecutorial misconduct

Good Samaritan Laws prevent a prosecutor from prosecuting someone for some action protected by the Good Samaritan Law.  However, if a prosecutor wants to prosecute someone, a Good Samaritan Law isn't going to stop them: the prosecutor can easily find something else -- not covered by the Good Samaritan Law -- to charge them with: this is the thesis of "Three Felonies a Day".

Therefore, even if you think you will be protected by a Good Samaritan Law in aiding someone about to become harmed, you actually aren't, because prosecutors can and do abuse their power.  It is better to let the harm happen to the person and remain uninvolved rather than attract the attention of a prosecutor who will put effort into digging up dirt on you to circumvent the Good Samaritan Law.

The standard scenario, the scenario Good Samaritan Laws were intended for, is someone is overdosing on an illegal drug (possibly illegal because underage alcohol).  The person in a position to help, the potential Good Samaritan, who can connect the overdosing person to medical care, has had some involvement in providing the illegal drug in the first place.  (Perhaps this person is also black, recalling the racial bias in the justice system.)  Following the logic above, it is better not to call for medical help because of the legitimate fear of prosecutorial misconduct.  The Good Samaritan Law has failed its intended purpose.

Can this problem be solved?  The problem is deep, because a prosecutor is a political position, often elected.  If a (say) racist populace wants a prosecutor to abuse their power as described above, then the prosecutor is pretty much obligated to do so, or else they will be politically replaced by someone who will.

No comments :