This is purely hypothetical, but I got into a disagreement with a friend on this and we are pretty adamant on both of our positions, so please educate me.
Let us suppose I witness a crime, a felony crime, such as someone stealing a car. Suppose I know the car belongs to someone else, so I am perfectly aware that this is indeed a crime.
I say that the law does not provide any penalty for my failing to report it.
My friend says that I have broken the law by not reporting it.
Well, one of us is clearly wrong here. The question is, which one? Thanx.
Remember, that’s a federal statute, so it covers only federal crimes, but if you google “misprision of felony” you may find some interesting things. I don’t know if all states recognize it; I would be surprised if they do.
My brief review (google “misprision of felony” and “hue and cry”) shows that some states require more than merely failure to report; you must take active steps involving the crime (i.e., concealment or harboring a felon) before you are in trouble.
So with a bit of research, you may be able to report back to your friend that you were both right: some jurisdictions recognize misprision of felony, and others don’t.
Standard disclaimers – I’m not your lawyer, you’re not my client, this isn’t legal advice, don’t rely on it in any actual legal situation, keep your hands and arms inside the vehicle at all times, no flash photography, etc.
But that’s Federal law. Most felonies like the ones listed in the OP are state crimes, and it varies from state to state. Occasionally, the subject come up when a particularly egregious example occurs, like the David Cash case - Cash and his buddy Jeremy Strohmeyer were in a Nevada casino. Strohmeyer raped and murdered a seven year old girl, an act witnessed at least partially by Cash, who did not report it or attempt to do anything to stop it, though he didn’t participate, either. Cash was so unconcerned about what had happened, and made such insensitive comments that he drew a lot of outraged commentary in editorials and so on, and the Berkeley student government tried to have him expelled from UC Berkeley. However, he was not arrested for anything, and a DA made it very clear that while Strohmeyer would be tried (and was convicted), there wasn’t anything they could charge Cash with under Nevada law. Apparently, in some states he could have been charged with something.
(On preview I see that somebody has already made the “Federal statute” point, but I’ll post anyway since I’m providing an example. Oh, and this “David Cash” is not to be confused with the baseball player of the same name. Or a doper who is also named “David Cash” IRL and brought it up the last time I mentioned this.)
Hell, in France it’s a crime not to help out a traffic accident victim. They call it a “good Samaritan law”, although forced Samaritan would be an apter title.
According to this page, hue means the same thing as cry:
For the curious, raising the hue and cry was a requirement if a felony was committed, and if the hue and cry was raised, everyone in the community had an obligation to get out there and try to find the miscreant. From what I’ve seen, England’s Statute of Hue and Cry may date back to 1285. Misprision of felony is the modern interpretation of the old hue and cry.
Incidentally, there are other terms that are doubled (or made redundant), like “will and testament.” They both mean the same thing, but you see them linked a lot of times.
A related question, as the OP has already been answered.
In the Nero Wolfe series of books by Rex Stout, Nero would often deduce the identity of the criminal from evidence which the police already had. At times he would be threatened with obstruction or some such for not revealing the culprit. His response to this was that he was concealing no evidence, and that his thought processes and deductions were based on information held by the police.
If you were questioned in regard to a case, and you had deduced from the evidence that the killer had to be a left-handed blue-eyed Inuit born in the late 1950’s for example, are you compelled to reveal this?
In many states, becoming actively aware that a felony has been committed and agreeing not to bring it to the attention of law enforcement officials is the crime of “compounding a felony.” (New York terminology; “misprision” and other terminological uses are widespread, too.) There are obvious exceptions: a retained attorney, a priest or minister finding out in a (religious) confession or something roughly equivalent, a person who would incriminate himself in some way by doing so (but see “transactional and use immunity”).
[/quote]
A bit more on this, if anyone’s interested: many doublets in “legalese” come from the middle ages after the Norman conquest, when it was common to combine a French or Latinate term with its Anglo-Saxon synonym: aid and abet, free and clear, each and every, null and void, part and parcel, peace and quiet, etc. etc.
Others derive from now-defunct legal distinctions. A “last will and testament” operates to dispose of both real and personal property, and at one time (and in some jurisdictions still) different terms are used for the two. An heir is, historically, not precisely synonymous with a legatee, and neither are precisely identical to the person who reeives a bequest. (And let us not get into “contingent beneficiaries” and “remaindermen”!)
Also, the remedy available at common law may not have been the remedy in equity, and a smart lawyer made sure to ask for both, in the hopes of getting one or the other for his client. This gives rise to some modern-day doublets in pleading.
I recently took a CPR certification class (in California) and we were told that legally you don’t have to perform CPR on someone, but if you begin, you are legally required to continue until relieved by a qualified medical person (EMT, etc.), even if the victim is clearly dead. You can’t make the decision to stop.
We were told that the “Good Samaritan law” covered you from prosecution/lawsuit if you were to do harm when attempting a rescue, as long as you were acting in good faith and only within your recognized abilities. (i.e. break a rib while doing compressions, but NOT doing an emergency tracheotemy with a pen)
The term “Good Samaritan law” is applied to more than one type of law. One of them is the sort of law that you were discussing, protecting somebody who makes a reasonable attempt to render emergency assitance from lawsuits. It is also used for the “you must report a crime you see” law we have been discussing, or the French “You must render emergency assistance” law. When the Cash case I mentioned was in the news, many media presentations of it mentioned that Nevada didn’t have a “Good Samaritan law” that Cash could be charged under, and that some states had such laws.
