Legal Question in Constitutional Law in France
Good Samaritan vs. Non-Assistance a Personne en Danger
A recent rerun of Law & Order revolved around the fact that a young man saw his friend strangle his girlfriend, but chose not to stop him. In passing, Assistant DA McCoy states that it would be nice to have a Good Samaritan law, but that it never would pass constitutional muster.
Now, the French have a ''Non-Assistance a Personne en Danger'' law, which states that you can be prosecuted for not helping out, as in the case above.
Why would two countries with generally comparable legal systems and constitutions have such different constitutional views of what's right in this case ?
3 Answers from Attorneys
Re: Good Samaritan vs. Non-Assistance a Personne en Danger
Your assumption is flawed. The US and France have very little in common in their respective legal systems. The US and England have a very close relationship, as they spring from a common background [we still observe many aspects of the English Common Law], but France operates under the Napolenoic Code which is more monarch than constitutionally based.
Re: Good Samaritan vs. Non-Assistance a Personne en Danger
Howdy:
A Good Samaritan law doesn't require action; rather, it protects an aider from liability for any harm caused through the giving of aid.
Our Constitution isn't s'posed to be a document that directs people, but one that restricts what government can do.
Unfortunately, we're getting away from that.
This doesn't answer your question, either, but in a few more posts, we'll get there!
rkr
Re: Good Samaritan vs. Non-Assistance a Personne en Danger
While France and the United States were founded upon similar political and philosophical principles, their legal systems -- including the laws themselves as well as the courts that enforce them -- are very different. I won't attempt to catalog all of the differences here, but your statement that the two countries have "generally comparable legal systems" is not correct.