Applying “Bystander Effect” to Local Social Services Emphasizes Need for Support

An article in The Record on January 17th got me doing some serious thinking. I decided to write a letter to the editor, which appeared in The Record on January 21st.

My comments, which I'll repeat here, are in response to Michelle Tait’s article entitled “Police warn of ‘bystander effect’ in mall robberies.” 

The article suggests that police may have narrowly missed catching those involved in a recent Conestoga Mall jewelry store robbery due to the “bystander effect”, whereby witnesses to a crime or accident neglect to call 911 because they assume someone else already has.

 

Particularly for those not directly involved in a situation, calling 911 can be perceived as a decision to be made at their discretion rather than a dire necessity. One could easily assume that someone more closely linked to the incident has already sought help. Likewise, bystanders might assume that because they didn’t witness the whole event, what little they do know doesn’t warrant a 911 call.

 

The “bystander effect” can also be applied to our local social services sector. It would be easy for many individuals, particularly those not personally affected as of yet, to assume that failing to support those in need in our community – perhaps neglecting to lend their contribution “just this once” - won’t have a negative impact. After all, everyone else will continue to lend their support, right?

 

Remember, the next time someone in our community decides not to call 911 - or decides it’s not important to support local social service needs - it may be you or someone dear to your heart in dire need of assistance. How will you feel about the “bystander effect” then?

I invite you to join the United Way team in making a conscious effort to not be a bystander!

Jan