Editing Bystander effect (section)

==Implications of research==

===South African murder trials===
In an effort to make [[South Africa]]n courts more just in their convictions, the concept of ''[[extenuating circumstances]]'' came into being.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Colman | first1 = A.M. | year = 1991 | title = Crowd psychology in South African murder trials | journal = American Psychologist | volume = 46 | issue = 10| pages = 1071–1079 | doi=10.1037/0003-066x.46.10.1071| pmid = 1746773 | hdl = 2381/467 | url = https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/10076180 | hdl-access = free }}</ref> However, no concrete definition of extenuating circumstances was ever made. The South African courts began using the testimony of expert social psychologists to define what extenuating circumstances would mean in the [[justice]] system. Examples include: [[deindividuation]], bystander apathy, and [[conformity]].

In the case of ''S. vs. Sibisi and Others (1989)'' eight members of the [[South African Railways and Harbours Union]] were involved in the murder of four workers who chose not to join in the SARHWU strike. Psychologists Scott Fraser and Andrew Colman presented evidence for the defense using research from [[social psychology]].
[[Social anthropologist]] Boet Kotzé provided evidence for the defense as well. He testified that [[African cultures]] are characterized by a [[collective consciousness]]. Kotzé testified that the collective conscious contributed to the defendants' willingness to act with the group rather than act as individuals. Fraser and Colman stated that ''bystander apathy,'' [[deindividuation]], [[conformity]] and [[group polarization]] were extenuating factors in the killing of the four strike breakers. They explained that deindividuation may affect group members' ability to realize that they are still accountable for their individual actions even when with a group. They also used research on bystander apathy by Latané and Darley to illustrate why four of the eight defendants watched as the other four defendants killed four men. The testimonies of Fraser and Colman helped four of the defendants escape the death penalty.{{citation needed|date=June 2020}}

===Laws===
{{Main|Duty to rescue}}
Some parts of the world have included laws that hold bystanders responsible when they witness an emergency.

# The [[Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms|Charter of human rights and freedoms]] of [[Quebec]] states that "[e]very person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason".<ref>[http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/rsq-c-c-12/latest/rsq-c-c-12.html Charter of human rights and freedoms] Section 2</ref> It is therefore a legal obligation to assist people in danger in Quebec if it is safe to do so.
# Likewise, the Brazilian Penal Code states that it is a crime not to rescue (or call emergency services when appropriate) injured or disabled people including those found under grave and imminent danger as long as it safe to do so. This also includes abandoned children.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/Del2848.htm |title=DEL2848 |publisher=Planalto.gov.br |access-date=2011-10-27}}</ref>
# The German penal code makes it a crime for a person to fail to render aid in cases of accidents or other common dangers, unless such person would thereby endanger themselves or it would be contrary to some other important obligation.<ref>{{cite German law|para=323c (1)|de=StGB|defull=Strafgesetzbuch|url=https://WWW.Gesetze-im-Internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p3022}}</ref>

In the US, [[Good Samaritan law]]s have been implemented to protect bystanders who acted in good faith. Many organizations are including bystander training. For example, the United States Department of the Army is doing bystander training with respect to sexual assault. Some organizations routinely do bystander training with respect to safety issues. Others have been doing bystander training with respect to diversity issues.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Scully | first1 = M. | last2 = Rowe | first2 = M. | year = 2009 | title = Bystander training within organizations | journal = Journal of the International Ombudsman Association | volume = 2 | issue = 1| pages = 1–9 }}</ref>{{efn|See also http://www.clemson.edu/olweus/ for an overview of a use of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program.}} Organizations such as American universities are also using bystander research to improve bystander attitudes in cases of rape. Examples include the InterAct Sexual Assault Prevention program<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Ahrens | first1 = C. E. | last2 = Rich | first2 = M. D. | last3 = Ullman | first3 = J. B. | s2cid = 27411790 | year = 2011 | title = Rehearsing for real life: The impact of the InterACT sexual assault prevention program on self-reported likelihood of engaging in bystander interventions | journal = Violence Against Women | volume = 17 | issue = 6| pages = 760–776 | doi = 10.1177/1077801211410212 | pmid = 21628338 }}</ref> and the Green Dot program.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Coker | first1 = A. L. | last2 = Cook-Craig | first2 = P. | last3 = Williams | first3 = C. M. | last4 = Fisher | first4 = B. S. | last5 = Clear | first5 = E. R. | last6 = Garcia | first6 = L. S. | last7 = Hegge | first7 = L. M. | s2cid = 20632584 | year = 2011 | title = Evaluation of green dot: An active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses | journal = Violence Against Women | volume = 17 | issue = 6| pages = 777–796 | doi = 10.1177/1077801211410264 | pmid = 21642269 }}</ref> Others have been critical of these laws for being punitive and criminalizing the problem they are meant to address.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Meyer|first=Doug|title=The Gentle Neoliberalism of Modern Anti-bullying Texts: Surveillance, Intervention, and Bystanders in Contemporary Bullying Discourse|journal=Sexuality Research & Social Policy|volume=13|issue=4|pages=356–370|doi=10.1007/s13178-016-0238-9|year=2016|s2cid=148471672}}</ref>

Many institutions have worked to provide options for bystanders who see behavior they find unacceptable. These options are usually provided through [[complaint systems]]—so bystanders have choices about where to go. One option that is particularly helpful is that of an [[organizational ombudsman]], who keeps no records for the employer and is near-absolutely confidential.