When this news was spread by the mass media the parliament proposed that the Good Samaritan Law on the books be amended. When a person can be helped and help is not offered you are liable to punishment of one year in prison and a fine of about 3,000 dollars. The intent of the law was to help form a more desirable society. An internet survey showed the majority of the citizens were in favor of the law.
The professor sees some problems with the law. First of all, it is against the principle of proportionality. Quoting some lawyers he says it is excessive punishment. If there is not an immediate connection with a crime then there is not to be a penalty. This is contrary to the principle of liability with fault. Many also see the tendency to legislate a person's religious beliefs into law.
However, the professor's biggest problem is none of the above but sees it as a misunderstanding of the meaning of the parable in Luke's Gospel 10: 25-27. Jesus tells the teacher of the law that the main point of the law is to love your neighbor as yourself. The teacher of the law questions: "Who is my neighbor?" Here Jesus gives us the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Jesus is telling the teacher of the law not to ask who is the neighbor but you be the neighbor. The Good Samaritan teaching does not fit the case of those going to the airport. The way the law can be understood is that you can penalize those who are not your neighbor. Those that treat you well become your neighbor and the others are not. This is not the understanding of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
With this understanding of the parable are we bettering society? In the parable of the Good Samaritan are the Levite and the priest, not our neighbor? And those going to the airport who weren't concerned with the taxi driver: are they not also our neighbor? We know how Jesus would answer.
