In the article ,"Bystanders don't act as man is beaten to death," it makes the claim that ," A schizophrenic man allegedly told his brother he heard voices that told him to kill a stranger in a bus station bathroom" (Associated Press). If the brother had stepped in, this crime would not have needed to happen and the police could have been alerted. This man clearly is unable to differentiate between right and wrong, so it must be up to others around him to establish the boundaries of the law for someone who is unable to as a civic duty. Another situation, in which a criminal thought he was unpunishable is in the article "Thirty-Eight Witnesses", when after an attacker was caught and sent to court, he said at one point about the lack of intervening witnesses, “’I knew they wouldn't do anything-they never do’" (Gansberg).This revelation would lead many to the conclusion that if someone had clearly interrupted, he would have stopped the attack since it would be clear to him that what he was doing was indecent and wrong. Moreover, the innocent woman would be alright and would be saved from having to deal with this violent crime while the man would be in prison. In conclusion, interfering or altering others to a possible crime will not let others think that what they're doing is right, justified, or will go