Duty to Help

It seems pretty clear that Mill envisioned a sphere of liberty larger than that provided in our country right now. That's why it seemed so strange to see this claim:

There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as to... perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow-creature's life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage, things which whenever it is obviously a man's duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing.

First I must admit I'm not sure whether he is arguing that this responsibility should be enforceable by law, or "where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation." He doesn't make it clear.

If he does intend to have it legally enforceable, however, it would seem to be an interesting area where Mill is actually calling for more restrictions on liberty than our laws currently provide. Isn't "you don't have to save a drowning baby" one of the classic points illustrating our hesitance to enforce a so-called duty to help?

I've always thought so, and Seinfeld finale aside, have rarely run across so-called Good Samaritan laws (not the ones protecting those who help, e.g. roadside motorists, but those actually enforcing a duty to help). Naturally enough, today I ran into one. While researching rape laws (a terrible project that has been pretty depressing), I came across this Rhode Island law:

11-37-3.1 Duty to report sexual assault.

Any person, other than the victim, who knows or has reason to know that a first degree sexual assault or attempted first degree sexual assault is taking place in his or her presence shall immediately notify the state police or the police department of the city or town in which the assault or attempted assault is taking place of the crime.

Very interesting... and here's the penalty:

11-37-3.3 Failure to report -- Penalty.

Any person who knowingly fails to report a sexual assault or attempted sexual assault as required under § 11-37-3.1 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year, or fined not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or both.

I don't as yet have an opinion on the wisdom or justice of such laws, though my policy preferences certainly support anything we can do to reduce the difficulty of preventing/prosecuting sex crimes. But as a question of liberty, I'm befuddled.

Mill's other examples of positive duties are "to give evidence in a court of justice" and "to bear his fair share in the common defence," and I'm fully on board with the first, and mostly on board with the second. So maybe Mill is on to something, and the hesitancy we have about enforcing a duty to help is ill-founded.