The death of Kitty Genovese was one of the horrendous acts have that ever happened in the history of crime. The heinous crime witnessed one of the human incapability in offering help to others in an emergency situation. Of all the Genovese neighbors, no one came to help her when she was attacked. Surprisingly, it is alleged by the witnesses that it took more than 30 minutes for the murderer to kill Genovese.
The time was enough to rescue her. For many years, the same trend of not reacting towards helping others among humans has been observed. Sociologists have observed this trend and have always tried to explain the reasons of such irresponsibility. It is important for moral responsibility to be observed by everyone in the society. Such a contentious discussion is still being investigated.
Nevertheless, the murder story of Genovese also raised issues such as what should be done to criminals, who have intentions to kill without reasonable doubts. Some critics argue that the punishment for murders should be death sentence, while others view it as unnecessary action that does not protect lives.
The following discussion gives an insight into why people are reluctant to help others and why death sentence, torture or capital punishment should be reviewed on convicted murderers.
One important concept that emerges from the issue of people not helping others is the diffusion of responsibilities. According to sociologists, the diffusion of responsibility is the solitary reason behind people being inactive in situations that require emergency help. Diffusion of responsibility will emanate from the aspects that will be discussed further.
First, a bystander response research indicates that there is always a “psychological withdrawal with an individual who is among a crowd of other persons” (Hirschberg & Hirschberg 768). In this case, the individual becomes a little bit indifferent. However, the bystanders or, in this case, the crime witnesses do not necessarily become indifferent, but experience inhibition of any possible responsibility.
For example signs of “nervousness is observed among the witnesses” (769).Interestingly, their actions towards helping in an emergency situation may be inhibited by culture. For example, the American culture does not allow people to interfere with other people’s privacy. It is perceived to be “bad manners to interfere with others privacy in America” (769).
This may be another reason as to why Genovese neighbors never came to rescue the victim. In any case, the evidence given by the witnesses’ shows that victim only heard screams, but never witnessed the act of killing. In this case, “seeing is not the same as believing” (769). Another inhibitor may be lack of proper interpretation regarding an emergency situation.
If a bystander or witness does not deem a situation to be of emergency nature, then the bystander will be reluctant to intervene in such situations. For all these types of inhibitions to be fully functional, an environment that depicts a presence of other onlookers is always evidenced. Basically, the inhibition only occurs when the bystander in question is among other bystanders.
In essence, the inhibition affects other bystanders as well. Nonetheless, “the underlying emergency always seems to affect the unresponsive bystanders in any instance” (769). This shows that the bystanders are not indifferent or lack apathy, but are nervous. As indicated earlier, a majority of people who are among a crowd fail to react due to responsibility diffusion (Hirschberg & Hirschberg 770).
From this perspective, people tend to think that another person witnessing the event has equal responsibilities, thus the reluctance to respond first. This may have been in the case of Genovese, where each neighbor might have thought that others were watching Genovese or the murderer. The filtration of the responsibility is psychological.
However, in a scenario where “the emergency is witnessed by a single person, the response is always instantaneous” (770). Nevertheless, in the case of Genovese, the incapability of the witnesses to respond to the cries of the woman should not inhibit the justice system. This means that, without reasonable doubts, the death sentence passed to the murderer is justifiable.
Many years later, Genovese murderer appealed against the death sentence ruling. The murderer through his lawyer argued that the case was passed unfairly, considering that the murderer’s lawyer during the trial was once the victim’s lawyer. The murderer’s lawyer argued that the sentence should be reduced to life imprisonment.
It is through such judicial sentences that the question of torture in the judicial system is revisited. The appealing of the death sentence, questions the integrity of providing justice to the victims of those who were innocently killed. The reduction of those does not only undermine the fact that such crimes need to be deterred, but also undermines giving reprieve to the victim’s family members.
There are arguments that death sentence cannot bring back the victim. Of course, it cannot bring back the victim, but it is important to understand that most of the murderers have an intent that is associated with an ideology. Genovese murder had previously committed many other killings and raping and thus was acting out of an ideology. These acts are similar to those of a terrorist who subscribe to a certain ideology.
The murderer confessed that he was looking for someone to hunt down and kill that night. This is an unremorseful act that was done out of will. Reducing death sentence to life imprisonment is like protecting a criminal’s ideology to live on. “Death sentence is the ultimate punishment for people who do not value human life “(Banner 281).
It is without doubt that victims who succumb to murderers do not get themselves killed intentionally. Probably, Genovese would not have been killed if the law had nabbed the murderer earlier and passed a death sentence. Sociologists’ term the heinous acts by serial killers as just but a game. To sociologists, serial killers are enslaved to acts of crime for the purpose of public recognition.
In this context, it would be morally wrong to just disregard the judicial authority on passing death sentence to such criminals. The murder of Genovese was no game, though was portrayed as such by the killer. The justice system should therefore perceive such as a mockery to justice.
In conclusion, it is important to acknowledge the fact that it is the moral duty of everyone to help others. Whether such acts of humanity are triggered “psychologically by apathy or lack of indifference or not, it remains a moral duty to all persons” (Hirschberg & Hirschberg 768). It is sometimes deemed selfish not to help others. This calls for change of attitude and culture that promotes selfishness.
On the other hand, acts that take away lives should not go unpunished. In fact, “death sentence is the best punishment for murder” (Bienen 147). The protection of lives, the closure of victim’s families and deterrence of future cold blood murder, should always guide the passing of a death sentence.
Works Cited
Banner, Stuart. The death penalty: An American history, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2003. Print.
Bienen, B., Leigh. Murder and its consequences: Essays on capital punishment in America, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 2010. Print.
Hirschberg, Stuart, and Terry Hirschberg. The millennium reader, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.