John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017 May;12(3):374-381. doi: 10.1177/1745691616679465.
Well known in popular culture, the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese in Queens, New York, became famous because not one of an alleged 38 bystanders called police until it was too late. Within psychology, this singular event inspired the study of bystander intervention. With the spotlight of history focused on Ms. Genovese and bystanders, other events, also profound for what they tell us about human social behavior, have escaped public notice. Based on archival records and current interviews, this article describes the three issues linked to Genovese. First, three false confessions, taken from two individuals, led to their wrongful convictions and imprisonment. One of these individuals was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona (1966); the other individual is alive and well and wants to clear his name. Second, the narrative of the unresponsive bystander was initiated by police, not by journalists, in response to probing questions about one of these confessions. Finally, there is the ironic fact, which somehow has slipped through the cracks, that the killer of Genovese was ultimately captured as a result of the intervention of two bystanders.
在流行文化中广为人知的是,1964 年发生在纽约皇后区的基蒂·热诺维斯谋杀案之所以出名,是因为据称 38 名旁观者中没有一人在为时过晚之前报警。在心理学领域,这一独特事件激发了对旁观者干预的研究。由于历史的聚光灯聚焦在热诺维斯女士和旁观者身上,其他一些同样深刻地揭示了人类社会行为的事件也没有引起公众的注意。基于档案记录和当前的采访,本文描述了与热诺维斯案相关的三个问题。首先,来自两个人的三个虚假认罪口供导致了他们的错误定罪和监禁。其中一个人被美国最高法院在米兰达诉亚利桑那州案(1966 年)中引用;另一个人还活着,并希望澄清自己的罪名。其次,对其中一个口供的质疑引发了警方而不是记者提出的无动于衷旁观者的叙述。最后,有一个具有讽刺意味的事实,不知何故被忽视了,即热诺维斯的凶手最终是因为两名旁观者的干预而被捕的。