When Is Silence Golden?

By Janis Prince Inniss

More than 40 years ago, Kitty Genovese was fatally stabbed as she arrived home from work at 3 am. Although there is now some debate about exactly how many of Ms. Genovese’s apartment neighbors heard her cries for help, it seems clear that some did hear her.

From their Kew Gardens apartments in Queens, New York, neighbors reportedly heard her scream and some even looked out and saw Ms. Genovese struggle with her assailant. Someone who heard her cries called out and the assailant fled, allowing Ms. Genovese to get closer to her building. A few minutes later the attacker returned and murdered Catherine “Kitty” Genovese.

I first learned about Ms. Genovese’s murder in an Introductory Sociology class and I know that it is still included in many textbooks. Perhaps you have read about this tragedy too. The reason that sociologists and social psychologists have referenced this story is that it highlights some important theoretical ideas about the way we behave: Initial reports said there were 38 witnesses who would have heard or seen some aspect of this crime being committed—a number now highly disputed—but still, the fact that not one single person came to the aid of this woman is baffling.

In May, a 13-year-old Walker Middle School student in Tampa alleged that he was sexually battered by two flag-football teammates while two others held him down in the school locker room. Three of the boys accused are 14 and one is 15. Apparently the victim said nothing while the attack occurred and nothing afterward.

He claims that the same boys had been bullying him for almost two months, during which time he said nothing to his mother, teachers, nor any other adult. Reportedly there were nine witnesses who saw and/heard various aspects of this assault. Yet none of them said anything to authorities until they were called in for questioning.

All of this silence has been confounding for school authorities. For example, School Board member Jack Lamb said, “I'm very surprised that this was taking place and nothing was said. It's kind of amazing." Another board member, April Griffin initially responded to the silence of the witnesses by suggesting that they should be punished: "If they watched these situations take place….I would like some repercussions for those students.” (Griffin later acknowledged that punishing youth who witness bullying will not serve to make them more likely to report such behaviors.)

A variety of explanations have surfaced to explain the silence of the witnesses. Perhaps the witnesses thought it was a joke and didn’t realize it was as serious as it was, or maybe they assumed that the victim would report behavior this brutal. Even if these young witnesses recognized it as an attack and not a joke, perhaps they thought that “somebody” else would report the assault.

The Bystander Effect - Kitty Genovese
Uploaded by kronosposeidon. - Discover more science and tech videos.

Social psychologists developed the idea of bystander effect which might help us understand the behavior of witnesses in both cases. Simply put, the theory predicts that large groups of people are less likely to respond to an emergency than smaller groups are because in a large group there is diffusion of responsibility: We each presume that someone else will respond, or that someone else will handle the situation better. Sometimes people are even reluctant to help while others are looking on. Although continued experiments to test this theory have met with varied results, the notion is a compelling one and can be used to understand the lack of bystander response in these stories.

What about the idea that reporting criminal or other behavior is snitching? And that snitching is bad? Within the hip-hop community and accompanied by t-shirts, DVDs (one notably featuring NBA player Carmelo Anthony) and other such accoutrements, the “Stop Snitching” campaign tells people not to cooperate with law enforcement authorities. Busta Rhymes and Cam’ron are just two of the more famous hip-hop artistes to employ this philosophy. Despite some publicity about the “Stop Snitching” campaigns from mainstream press such as Anderson Cooper for “60 Minutes”, a code of silence prevails in many other arenas. Can you think of some of those? Is it likely that middle school students in Tampa have adopted the “Stop Snitching” philosophy?

Or consider the case of Lisa Torti, who pulled her co-worker Alexandra Van Horn out of a car after seeing Van Horn’s car hit a pole. Van Horn became a paraplegic and has sued Torti alleging that her condition is due to Torti’s actions. Do you think people resist getting involved to avoid trouble for themselves?

Have you witnessed behaviors that should be reported? Did you? What influenced your decision either way? What are your theories about how cases like these two occur? And what do we know from the social sciences that could help school boards, for example, to find ways of changing such behaviors? What have you learned from sociology that would help you to provoke a response from bystanders if you were in harm’s way?

Comments

[amanda funaro 3]

There are many reasons why one would not want to get involved in a crime the witnessed or heard. For one it disrupts their everyday life because not only do they have to talk to the police but now they have to go to court possibly more then once and lets be honest who really wants to go through all of that? However, there is a fine line between "not snitching" and "snitching". Think about this, how would you feel if someone killed you? Obviously most people would say, "I wouldn't care because I am dead" but take another step back and think, what about your family and Friends? People who actually care for you and love you? Would they not want justice to the person who took you away from them? Also this idea about people not "snitching" to the cops just shows how people really are. They are so ready to break all the rules and laws we have established in society but when it comes to their own "ethnic rules" about not "snitching" they aren't so prepared to break the rules. Then there is this issue about how others perceive us. Those people in the 60 minutes video are more worried about how others in their community view them that they stop worrying about what is right and wrong. So when will mankind stop worrying about snitching and start caring about other beings? Well I guess I will leave that question up in the air for you to decide the next time you witness a crime being committed.

[ostrix]

I agree with Amanda and with the reasons stated above explaining the anti-"snitching" behavior. As I see it, roughly, there are two major reasons: (a) nobody wants to get himself in trouble and go through the "being-a-witness" process, because (b) you will not necessarily get the credit of a "hero", just like in Lisa Torti case. One's initiative is very likely not to be appreciated or even taken in the wrong way.
What outrages me, is people who simply stand and watch. I mean, come on, you might be not "saint" enough or have the guts to defend/save somebody's life, but at least don't videotape it! This is so ridiculous, lacking any ideological approach (contrary to the "anti-snitching" approach, which, being arguable at least has some background explanation). Have an example http://www.bestgore.com/road-accidents/three-people-burned-alive-trapped-burning-car-drunk-driving/

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

A few things here. First: the version of the Kitty Genovese story that has passed into popular myth has been thoroughly debunked. Contrary to the myth, there were no "witnesses" who actually saw a stabbing while callously ignoring it.

The people on the block of the murder heard only yelling at 3:30am, a not-infrequent occurrence on that street which had a popular bar. (The bar was in fact closed that particular night because of the recent spate of such drunken shenanigans.)

The people living in the apartment buildings on that street who heard the yelling and who went to their windows would have seen very little, because of the dim streetlights then in use, and because of the absence of the floodlights which currently light the parking lot which the victim used. Most said that they saw only a woman walking down the street. However, one apartment-house resident, a 15-year-old boy, did see the attacker (though he did not appreciate that the attacker had just stabbed the victim). The boy's father called the police right away; the police blew him off.

Also debunked is the part of the myth which states that the callous witnesses sat on their hands while the attacker came back to stab the victim a second time. In fact, this second attack actually had no witnesses, as it took place in the rear of the victim's building.

If the popular myth version of the Kitty Genovese tale is, as you say, presented in sociology textbooks, then it should be labelled as a hypothetical, not as an historical account.

OK, now onto the sociological points. To intervene in a street attack that one witnesses would be, in most cases, madness. ("Excuse me, Mr. Maniac -- would you mind killing me as well? Thank you so much.") I am sure you are aware that a street mugging is not a fair fight governed by the Queensbury rules. So, unless the witness is well-armed and is also trained in hand-to-hand combat, then his intervening is most likely going to neither deter the attacker nor help the original victim; it will amount simply to rushing headlong into his own destruction. It is good sense -- not callousness -- which would stop any sane and rational person from intervening in this sort of instance.

However, there is a middle ground between ignoring and intervening: bluffing. This is when you threaten to intervene (while having no intention to actually do so, and while having already established an escape route), in the hopes that the attacker takes the threat seriously and runs off. An unlikely combination of circumstances, to be sure, but one in which I found myself several years ago.

I was riding my bike one afternoon (on a street near the murder discussed above, coincidentally), when I saw and heard a man yelling loudly and making threatening gestures at a woman in front of a house. I made eye-contact with the woman; I then circled the block once, and came to a stop across the street and up the block from them, in clear view of both the assailant and his potential victim. The man shouted some curses at me, to which I responded that he had better get out of there, or else he was going to be "in trouble".

What did I mean by "in trouble"? Was I going to call the cops? Was I going to attack him myself? Was I going to round up an angry mob? In fact, I was going to do none of those things; indeed, I was fully prepared to flee if he had charged me or had produced a weapon. But I hoped that the sudden appearance on the scene of this rude, arrogant, shouting asshole (I am referring to myself here) would cause enough doubt in the attacker's mind to persuade him to back off.

Luckily, it worked, and the guy stomped away. But, even if this strategy hadn't worked, my conscience would still be satisfied that I had done what was responsible, reasonable, and morally correct in that situation.

Finally, regarding "No Snitching": in my opinion, this phenomenon is mostly unrelated to the bystander question, because it is far less spontaneous. Even though almost all schoolchildren feel instinctively that "snitching" is morally questionable (showing that there is undeniably something within the human psyche which more easily finds "fellowship" with our peers (even if they be attackers) than with the authorities), the phenomenon of "No Snitching" as discussed here is nevertheless a conscious practice of an ideology. So it is less a sociological phenomenon than a purely political one.

The mainstream typically characterises the "No Snitching" phenomenon as mindlessly obstructionist. In fact, "No Snitching" is a product of a moral philosophy which arises from the life experience of oppressed people, mostly black, for whom the police are nothing more than a marauding occupying army. This experience serves as the moral underpinning for the "No Snitching" ideology -- it is wrong to talk to the police because, by doing so, one is only enabling a far greater evil.

So, I'd say that the main sociological question involving the "No Snitching" phenomenon has nothing to do with any one individual's decision not to talk to the police; but, rather, it lies in the systematic blindness on the part of privileged mainstream sectors to the morality which underlies this practice among oppressed people.

[Paul McKinley]

I would say that the "Stop Snitching" philosophy is probably more common than those running the campaigns even know. Whether is stems from fear of being involved, friendship of the one causing the harm, or even a sick sort of curiousity, you have to agree that people in majority are unwilling to get involved in crimes: even if "involved" means stopping them. I believe a wide spread fear, almost paranoia, of police mistaking your intentions and arresting you for your assistance is also at the heart of this diffusion of responsibility. One other point I want to point out is the curiousity excuse. How many researchers use this as a way of watching immoral actions without helping? Sure, they are gathering research, but is this really different from what common citizens are doing?

[Kim Osbeck]

I think this article was very insightful. People always stand by and hope that someone else will say something. "Snitching" is always considered bad when it should be the opposite. People should feel like they need to stick for one another instead of watching out for themselves.

[Autumn Tisdale]

Holy crap.....I never knew that people would be this stupid to not say anything. I mean I can understand why the victim didn't say anything but the witnesses? There were nine of them and not one said a think until they were question. They were little kids but the 38 witnesses that were adults and witnessed a murder should have said something! What the heck? Take responsibility for something in your life. What caused them to not say anything? Fear? Fear of what? I have no idea and that really makes me mad. I have never heard anything about these two stories and I wish I wouldn't have because this has put me in a bad mood. I so dislike when things like this happen. They have no good excuse to keep silent. No one ever does when it comes down to justice. I can't stand it!

[Alyssa Ledesma]

It really is terrible that people wouldnt help others in situations like these, but I can understand why people would be reluctant to do so. I agree with many of your statements on the fear, disbelief, and even the "Stop Snitching" idea. It is very possible that these people watching don't know exactly how to react and believe that someone else who does will come forward and do what needs to be done; but in situations where no one believes they can help, no one helps. I've also personally seen the fear that spreads when someone is in trouble; people are generally taught to look after yourself and mind your own business, and fear repercussion if they try and step forward. It is terrible that people have been so warped into believing that others problems do not effect them, for it could be them in a similar situation in the future, or in some other way it could have a direct effect on them.

[Lei He]

Kitty Genovese's story is a very sad case in which it shows diffusion of responsibility effect. If only one person stood forward, the tragedy might be avoided. If her family heard the noises, I am sure they would run out to help her. If she lives in a close-connected community, things might be different.

[Allison]

The "no snitching" comments in this article are a bit out of place and are not adequately explored. For example, among African Americans there is a long history of unfair treatment at the hands of the police. A "no snitching policy" among a racial group attempting to keep their members out of the hands of an unfair justice system is not the same "no snitching policy" that exists among, say, coworkers who are trying to get away with breaking rules on the job.

[Kendra Hull]

It is just baffling to me how someone could witness a crime and not speak up on the behalf of another human being, when in fact that witness would want the decency of the other person to speak on their behalf. As stated in ever popular saying "Do on to others as you want done on to you" I personally think that everyone needs not to be afraid of the risks of justice but to embrace the glory of the outcome.

[Rebecka]

This article caught my attention because this happens too often. People always assume someone else will always help. Also the snitch idea in my opinions is ridiculous, although there are some exceptions, if a serial killer lived next to me and I knew it I would say something. The police are there to keep people safe. If I were the person being stabbed i would expect someone to help me, or atleast call for help.

[Erica D.]

Not reporting a crime or stopping one is very common. "Stop snitching" has become a ppular trend that has dire consequences. I believe that there are a few reasons as to why people do not want to tell, such as they do not want to get involved, takes too much of their own personal time, being a "witness" might put thier own life in danger, or the person hopes that someone else will tell.

We should look at being a "witness" as being part of being a decent hman being and doing the right thing. Imagine if it was yourself or a family member being attacked; wouldn't you want someone to call the police to hopefully stop the attack or help to be able to catch the "bad guy?" We should'nt be afraid to help. We also should stop looking at the situation from the big picture stand point. We should place ourself in the situation and do the right thing. The right thing would be telling so to speak.