Where I Stand - Mike O'Callaghan: Problems in seeking a law to protect more children

ASSEMBLY MAJORITY LEADER Richard Perkins, D-Henderson, is an outstanding legislator, respected police officer and loving father. He's exactly the kind of office holder people in this area will continue to keep in a position of authority.

Because of Perkins' concern for the welfare of our children, I'm not surprised to see his anger about the killing of little Sherrice Iverson in the Primadonna Resort Casino. He believes that David Cash, a buddy of killer Jeremy Strohmeyer, could have possibly intervened and saved the child's life. Now Perkins wants a law that requires an observer of such a crime to act or also be prosecuted.

Perkins has requested his "Good Samaritan" bill be drafted for consideration by the 1999 Nevada Legislature. Anger by the national media has been expressed because Nevada, like many other states, doesn't have a law that could provide for the prosecution of Cash's lack of action. Of course, Cash didn't know or really care whether or not such a law existed. Even if the law had been in place last year, it wouldn't have saved the life of Sherrice Iverson. Only a more caring person then Cash might have saved her.

Immediately following the murder of the child, we heard condemnation of her father, who had left her in the care of a 14-year-old brother while the elder Iverson gambled into the wee hours of the morning. Then the public hatred zeroed in on Strohmeyer. During recent weeks, the finger pointing has been directed by a couple of California radio talk show hosts at an arrogant David Cash, now attending college. When all is said and done, not the father, brother or Cash killed Sherrice. What has happened, Nevada casinos have tightened up rules and security designed to protect children. The girl's mother wants more, including a federal law that would demand observers of crimes become involved.

Perkins, at the state level, and Congress at the national level, must be cautious so they don't produce a law that does more harm than good. It shouldn't simply be an extension of the law that requires professional child-care facilities, hospitals and doctors to report possible child neglect and abuse. There's a danger in extending this responsibility into the hands of the untrained and the further possibility of it being used by vindictive persons.

A USA Today newspaper editorial supporting such legislation goes on to warn, "That needs to change, although doing so will be a delicate matter. In the wake of the Strohmeyer case, states will find it easy to adopt sweeping obligation-to-act laws. But if such laws are written too broadly, they invite constitutional challenge as well as prosecutorial misuse. They may also be too strict, imposing penalties that are too rigid and harsh for the inevitable ambiguities that will arise."

In the same newspaper, Elisabeth Semel, a member of the board of directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, gives the following example, "You are at home one evening and think you hear your next-door neighbor and her daughter arguing. The girl is crying. The next day, police officers are at your door, demanding to know whether you heard any unusual noises the night before. You answer that you did hear an argument and crying, but that you are reluctant to intervene in the way other parents discipline their children. The police tell you the school reported that the child is bruised. They then announce that your neighbor has been charged with assault and that you are under arrest for failing to prevent or report a crime."

Semel then gives an additional warning, "It is always a safe bet that politicians, seeking to pander to the community's outrage, will not stop with a single statute. A spanking in the supermarket -- discipline or child abuse? Better call the police, and report it. Two strangers, shaking hands on the sidewalk -- drug sale? Better call 911 to be on the safe side."

Any new law drawn up by the Legislative Counsel Bureau should also take into consideration the great possibility the "Good Samaritan" law will make people less likely to get involved. Certainly it will make very poor prosecution witnesses of those who are discovered as possible witnesses during investigation of a crime. Almost immediately they will contact their own defense attorney and say they have seen nothing and heard nothing. Today many cases are prosecuted successfully because of a belated witness found by the police.

In our society, large numbers of people jam up the court system by filing lawsuits for many reasons other than seeking justice. Is this law going to provide a safety net from lawsuits for an erroneous reporting of child abuse? Will such a law be used to justify prosecutions based upon ill-motivated accusations? Does an untrained person have to be held to the same standard as a fully trained physician on child abuse? Are the state and local governments going to be held responsible, at whatever cost, for the safety and well-being of those witnesses forced to come forward and expose themselves to the dangers of retaliation and alienation? Such a law unnaturally shifts the individual weighing of the conscience by providing a myriad of created motivations.

Perkins, a most effective legislator, isn't a showboat and is seeking a law he hopes will help protect children. He must be certain that the so-called "Sherrice Iverson Bill" doesn't become just one more piece of "feel good" legislation that does more harm than good.

archive