Zarmina Khan
Social media and advanced mobile technology have revolutionized the means of communication, methods of information sharing, and ways of recording events. However, along with their positive aspects, they also have a dark side. There is an increasing tendency for humans to record violent incidents, tragic accidents, or personal cries without helping those in need, making individuals more desensitized. The sharing of such content can sometimes act as a tool for spreading awareness, but it also poses serious legal and ethical concerns. A spectator’s passive role in filming disturbing events rather than actively helping others highlights the growing danger to humanity’s sense of collective responsibility, moral integrity, and empathy. The shift from traditional inaction to digital spectatorship has redefined the bystander effect in the 21st century.
Bystander apathy describes an individual’s tendency to be less likely to offer help in an emergency when other people are also present. It is related to the bystander effect, where the presence of others decreases the chances that any one person will intervene and offer help. Some main reasons for the bystander effect are: diffusion of responsibility, which refers to the assumption that someone else will help; social influence, where people observe the behavior of others to determine how to act; and fear of judgment, which reflects the concern people may have about making a mistake or being criticized by others for intervening. Specifically, fear of legal involvement can lead people to avoid helping because they fear getting entangled in legal processes, such as being called as a witness, facing liability, or dealing with police investigations.
The bystander effect is compounded by the use of smartphones in today’s digital age. When a person witnesses an accident, violent incident, or fight, the instinct to record the event often overrides the urge to help. There are some reasons behind these actions. Fear of legal repercussions refers to the concern that helping could make someone liable for the incident; they could be sued or accused of escalating the situation. Desensitization reflects how social media has exposed people to graphic content, making them more desensitized to violence and human suffering. This emotional detachment can lead to inaction, as the event is reduced to content for online consumption rather than a real human crisis. Social validation refers to the idea that some people are driven by the desire for approval, as posting videos and pictures that capture events may attract likes, comments, and shares, rewarding the person for documenting rather than helping. The illusion of helping reflects the belief that sharing videos and pictures online will raise awareness or prompt action from authorities. While this narrative could be helpful, direct assistance is also needed, as this behavior may create an illusion of making a positive contribution without offering real help.
The decision to film rather than help can be seen as a moral failure. Just standing idly by and recording suffering without assisting, individuals may be violating this ethical obligation.
John Darley and Bibb Latané did their research on the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese in New York, and this case became a key example of what is now called the bystander effect, when people are less likely to help someone in need if there are other people around.
Albert Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement explains how people justify unethical behaviors. People disengage from their moral values by justifying actions that would typically be considered wrong or harmful. They may validate filming instead of helping by thinking, “I’m just recording the situation,” or “I’m not the only one here,” essentially reducing the ethical burden of helping. This rationalization makes it easier for them to remain inactive observers rather than take meaningful actions.
In August 2025, a tragic violent incident occurred in Raiwind, when a dispute started over money, and a fruit vendor and his brother attacked two brothers and began beating them. One brother, Wajid, died of extreme torture at the spot, while the other brother, Rashid, succumbed to his injuries later at the local hospital. The incident video went viral on social media, and it could be seen that many people were standing around them and recording the incident rather than helping them. The fact that nobody even tried to prevent the violent act or alert the authorities on time raised ethical concerns. Legally, while there was no obligation to physically intervene, the failure to call the police on time, or even the lack of a single effort by anyone to protect those two brothers, highlighted the bystander effect.
In November 2012, a video was uploaded on YouTube by a member of the public, showing that a diabetic man had collapsed unconscious on the floor of a busy London tube train, and no one cared. He lay there for several minutes until a woman pulled the train’s emergency alarm. The man who filmed it stated that he wanted to help but couldn’t, so he documented the incident and uploaded it. The event sparked media discussions about empathy and moral duty in public emergencies. Passengers’ silent behavior is truly threatening for humankind, and the bystander effect is making people more desensitized day by day.
In October 2017, a video surfaced on social media in which a Nigerian man was tied to a pole and locals were brutally beating him in Delhi. He was attacked after being accused of robbery by his neighbors. Many people around the scene filmed the brutal assault on their smartphones but did not intervene to stop the violent attack. The viral video raised serious concerns about public empathy and documenting violence without helping.
In October 2011, a two-year-old girl, Wang Yue, was hit by a van while wandering through a market in southern China. The driver didn’t stop and sped off. Almost 18 people walked past the toddler, but nobody stopped to help her. In the meantime, another van ran over her little legs. A rubbish collector finally moved the toddler to the side of the street, but due to systematic organ failure, she later died in the hospital. This incident sparked outrage and discussions about moral responsibility and the bystander effect.
Now the question arises: how far will this go, and what would the world look like if everyone began to behave this way? Imagine a person in serious trouble, bleeding severely, yet no one stops to help. And even if someone does stop, it’s only to film the incident, not to offer help.
Now, the real challenge is to reclaim empathy as a powerful force, not just to evoke emotional responses, but to inspire moral action in distressing situations, rather than simply recording them for the world to see. The legal aspect of filming without helping, or walking away to avoid any kind of interference in emergencies, brings various legal principles into focus such as Good Samaritan laws and bystander laws.
Good Samaritan laws are formulated to encourage people to help others in need without any fear of legal repercussions, and these laws protect people who act in good faith and provide help within their capabilities. But these laws don’t obligate someone to offer help. So, if any medical emergency happens, it’s not their legal duty to help that person, but a moral one. However, if they film it first and do not offer help, then it would be ethically incorrect, even if not legally punishable.
Unlike Good Samaritan laws, bystander intervention laws are much rarer and only exist in a few jurisdictions. These laws impose a legal duty on people to assist others in emergencies. Some European countries like France and Germany, encourage their people to intervene in emergencies if it’s safe to do so. It’s a legal obligation, so if a person records the incident and does not help the person in need, they could theoretically face legal consequences for failing to act when intervention was needed and possible to do.
In Pakistan, the act of filming distressing situations without offering help has become an increasingly prominent concern, particularly with the rising use of social media platforms and mobile phones. Pakistan still doesn’t have any Good Samaritan law or general bystander law, and this absence could discourage bystanders from offering help due to concerns over legal troubles. In most provinces, emergency services are considered the responsibility of provincial authorities. While some provinces have enacted specific acts, for example, the Punjab Emergency Services Act, 2006, these protect official responders, such as medical and rescue personnel, under specific conditions, but not to ordinary citizens.
There is a dire need for a Good Samaritan law and a bystander law in Pakistan to address this growing issue. Such laws not only provide legal protection to citizens who assist in emergencies but also encourage responsible behavior, ensuring that individuals act with compassion while helping maintain order and peace in society. Moreover, people must be educated through public awareness campaigns about the moral and social duty to assist those in need. Last but not least, integrating emergency response training into educational institutions can foster a more compassionate and proactive society from a young age.
The writer is Research Associate at the School for Law and Development.
