What do you think?
Rate this book
The Crime of Complicity: The Bystander in the Holocaust
If you are a bystander and witness a crime, should intervention to prevent that crime be a legal obligation? Or is moral responsibility enough?
In The Crime of Complicity, Amos N. Guiora addresses these profoundly important questions and the bystander-victim relationship from a deeply personal and legal perspective, focusing on the Holocaust and then exploring cases in contemporary society. Sharing the experiences of his parents, who were Holocaust survivors, and his grandparents, who did not survive, and drawing on a wide range of historical material and interviews, Guiora examines the bystander during three distinct events: death marches, the German occupation of Holland, and the German occupation of Hungary. He explains that while the Third Reich created policy, its implementation was dependent on bystander non-intervention.
Bringing the issue of intervention into current perspective, he examines sexual assault cases at Vanderbilt and Stanford Universities, as well as other crimes where bystanders chose whether or not to intervene, and the resulting consequences.
After examining the intensely personal example of his own parents’ survival of the Holocaust, Guiora asserts that a society cannot rely on morals and compassion alone in determining our obligation to help another in danger. It is ultimately, he concludes, a legal issue.
Should we make the obligation to intervene the law, and thus non-intervention a crime?
In The Crime of Complicity, Amos N. Guiora addresses these profoundly important questions and the bystander-victim relationship from a deeply personal and legal perspective, focusing on the Holocaust and then exploring cases in contemporary society. Sharing the experiences of his parents, who were Holocaust survivors, and his grandparents, who did not survive, and drawing on a wide range of historical material and interviews, Guiora examines the bystander during three distinct events: death marches, the German occupation of Holland, and the German occupation of Hungary. He explains that while the Third Reich created policy, its implementation was dependent on bystander non-intervention.
Bringing the issue of intervention into current perspective, he examines sexual assault cases at Vanderbilt and Stanford Universities, as well as other crimes where bystanders chose whether or not to intervene, and the resulting consequences.
After examining the intensely personal example of his own parents’ survival of the Holocaust, Guiora asserts that a society cannot rely on morals and compassion alone in determining our obligation to help another in danger. It is ultimately, he concludes, a legal issue.
Should we make the obligation to intervene the law, and thus non-intervention a crime?
280 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 1, 2017
16 people are currently reading
124 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
September 16, 2019
Even after reading and thinking a lot about lawyer Amos Guiora's, 'The Crime of Complicity: The Bystander in the Holocaust", I'm still disturbed and confused about the book. Guiora who was born in Israel and raised in both the United States and Israel, has practiced law in both countries. Currently, he works at the University of Utah and is the author many books on terrorism and world affairs. He is also the son of Holocaust survivors, and it is the ideas of "standing by" while others are taken that is the subject of this book.
Guiora's family on both sides were Hungarian Jews. His paternal grandparents were murdered in Auschwitz when the Germans invaded Hungary in Spring, 1944. His father survived the war but was in a work camp, and his mother and grandmother survived the Nazi occupation of Budapest through basically moving around and just plain luck. They were selected to be murdered by the Arrow Cross - the Hungarian Nazis - but the shooting in stopped before it reached them. Both parents emigrated to Israel after the war, met, and married.
Amos Guiora's book attempts to make sense out of how Jews were rounded up and sent to the concentration camps. He looks at the "bystanders" - those Christians who watched silently as their Jewish friends and neighbors were marched off to those trains that took them to their fates. He also looks at others who actually aided in the Nazi's attempts to make Europe "Judenrein". He makes the valid point that in Holland, Hungary, and Germany people knew bad things were going on to the Jews taken. As the war dragged on, the horrors of the camps were becoming known. But why did most people do nothing to help? I think almost everyone knows that abject fear kept most people from helping. Fear of getting involved in a dangerous situation and maybe being taken themselves.
Okay, some Christians helped their neighbors. Jews were hidden by people who cared, who weren't scared of the authorities, and were in a position to help. But most did not and I can understand why most did not. It's called human nature and its unfortunately a primal force in most humans.
And here's where Amos Giora's book seems to go off track. He writes about people who help other people in trouble and people who don't. People who watch or ignore bad situations they could help. He uses himself as an example when he writes about ignoring the cries of a young boy who has been locked out of his house on a cold night by his parents, apparently as some form of punishment. He doesn't call the police to help the child, even though he admits he could have done so anonymously. No, he just goes about his business and assumes the boy was let into his house eventually. This part of the book is at 63% and is titled "My Neighbor's Child". I went back and reread the passage several times to make sure I was interpreting it correctly. I thought he could be writing it as a hypothetical situation, but he wasn't. It really happened. He doesn't refer to it again in the book that I can find.
I was so disturbed by this one point because it was written with a blandness I could find nowhere else in the book. He rightly castigates others for basically doing the same thing, in different circumstances. Now, perhaps he was pointing out that ANYBODY could ignore the plight of others in troubled times. I just don't know and, in a way, it upsets the book's major point.
Guiora's family on both sides were Hungarian Jews. His paternal grandparents were murdered in Auschwitz when the Germans invaded Hungary in Spring, 1944. His father survived the war but was in a work camp, and his mother and grandmother survived the Nazi occupation of Budapest through basically moving around and just plain luck. They were selected to be murdered by the Arrow Cross - the Hungarian Nazis - but the shooting in stopped before it reached them. Both parents emigrated to Israel after the war, met, and married.
Amos Guiora's book attempts to make sense out of how Jews were rounded up and sent to the concentration camps. He looks at the "bystanders" - those Christians who watched silently as their Jewish friends and neighbors were marched off to those trains that took them to their fates. He also looks at others who actually aided in the Nazi's attempts to make Europe "Judenrein". He makes the valid point that in Holland, Hungary, and Germany people knew bad things were going on to the Jews taken. As the war dragged on, the horrors of the camps were becoming known. But why did most people do nothing to help? I think almost everyone knows that abject fear kept most people from helping. Fear of getting involved in a dangerous situation and maybe being taken themselves.
Okay, some Christians helped their neighbors. Jews were hidden by people who cared, who weren't scared of the authorities, and were in a position to help. But most did not and I can understand why most did not. It's called human nature and its unfortunately a primal force in most humans.
And here's where Amos Giora's book seems to go off track. He writes about people who help other people in trouble and people who don't. People who watch or ignore bad situations they could help. He uses himself as an example when he writes about ignoring the cries of a young boy who has been locked out of his house on a cold night by his parents, apparently as some form of punishment. He doesn't call the police to help the child, even though he admits he could have done so anonymously. No, he just goes about his business and assumes the boy was let into his house eventually. This part of the book is at 63% and is titled "My Neighbor's Child". I went back and reread the passage several times to make sure I was interpreting it correctly. I thought he could be writing it as a hypothetical situation, but he wasn't. It really happened. He doesn't refer to it again in the book that I can find.
I was so disturbed by this one point because it was written with a blandness I could find nowhere else in the book. He rightly castigates others for basically doing the same thing, in different circumstances. Now, perhaps he was pointing out that ANYBODY could ignore the plight of others in troubled times. I just don't know and, in a way, it upsets the book's major point.
January 28, 2019
Bij het zien van de foto op de cover van Medeplichtig van Amos N. Guiora weet je meteen waar het boek over zal gaan. De titel in de combinatie met de bloedrode kleur van de cover zegt genoeg. Het geeft aan dat ook de omstanders bloed aan hun handen hebben. De vraag is of dat ook zo is. Je wordt heel erg nieuwsgierig naar de mening van de auteur. Het is in ieder geval een heel interessant onderwerp die je aan het denken zet en misschien heb je jezelf al wel eens deze vraag afgevraagd als je weer eens een boek over de Tweede Wereldoorlog las. Het is een boek met gewetensvragen die pijnlijk kunnen zijn, omdat je zelf misschien ook niet altijd iemand te hulp bent geschoten om wat voor reden dan ook. Het boek houdt je hoe dan ook bezig, ook als je er niet in aan het lezen bent.
In de inleiding van Medeplichtig vertelt Amos N. Guiora hoe hij erop kwam om dit boek te schrijven, hoe hij dit boek heeft geschreven en een klein beetje over zijn achtergrond. Later vertelt hij wie hij is, wie zijn ouders en grootouders waren, wat zijn persoonlijkheid heeft gevormd en welke wet dat hij wil dat er komt. De wet die hij wil loopt als een rode draad door het boek.
Lees verder op https://surfingann.blogspot.com/2019/....
In de inleiding van Medeplichtig vertelt Amos N. Guiora hoe hij erop kwam om dit boek te schrijven, hoe hij dit boek heeft geschreven en een klein beetje over zijn achtergrond. Later vertelt hij wie hij is, wie zijn ouders en grootouders waren, wat zijn persoonlijkheid heeft gevormd en welke wet dat hij wil dat er komt. De wet die hij wil loopt als een rode draad door het boek.
Lees verder op https://surfingann.blogspot.com/2019/....
April 26, 2017
In this book, law professor Amos Guiora provides a persuasive argument for the creation of a new law: one that compels bystanders to intervene or face criminal punishment. There are, of course, factors of the new law that make it more reasonable than any single sentence could. Professor Guiora's argument is well-thought-out and clearly articulated.
At times it felt like there was some fluff, but overall the book tracked well and got to the point without meandering too far.
At times it felt like there was some fluff, but overall the book tracked well and got to the point without meandering too far.
May 22, 2022
“Poet Edward Yashinsky: “Fear only the indifferent who permit the killers and betrayers to walk safely on the earth.””
Interestingly, Amos Guiora, is a Professor of Law at the University of Utah. He’s also a Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) in the Israel Defense Forces. His parents survived the Holocaust; his grandparents did not. In this book he discusses"how" the Holocaust happened and explores current crimes when the victim was harmed because a bystander did nothing to intervene or call 911 for help. He believes that legislation is needed to compel bystanders to “do the right thing” and intervene when witnessing a crime.
I admit, in the beginning, this did seem a bit excessive. However, I found his argument compelling and the proposed legislation very reasonable: “Any person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm, shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this section shall be fined not more that $500.”
I believe most of us will choose to intervene, to help, to offer assistance, to call 911 instead of looking the other way or ignoring the situation.
However, there are some who need a law to compel them to do the right thing. This example solidified the concept for me and I support legislation. It is from a horrific gang-rape case at Vanderbilt University in 2013.
“The bystander [Mack Prioleau], a fellow football player, pretended to be asleep on the upper bunk while the victim was raped, sodomized and otherwise violated for over thirty minutes…He testified that he knew exactly what was going on but failed to intervene because the situation ‘made him uncomfortable.’ ….he was not charged with any crime , nor was he suspended from the university.”
Unbelievable.
So I did some research. If other witnesses are present, people are less likely to help a victim. This is called the Bystander Effect. To rephrase, ‘ the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that one of them will help.’ (Wikipedia)
Only 10 states have duty-to-act legislation: California, Florida, Hawaii,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Last year in 2018, the Utah legislature failed to pass a duty-to-assist bill sponsored by Rep. Brian King. I’m incredibly disappointed.
Interestingly, Amos Guiora, is a Professor of Law at the University of Utah. He’s also a Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) in the Israel Defense Forces. His parents survived the Holocaust; his grandparents did not. In this book he discusses"how" the Holocaust happened and explores current crimes when the victim was harmed because a bystander did nothing to intervene or call 911 for help. He believes that legislation is needed to compel bystanders to “do the right thing” and intervene when witnessing a crime.
I admit, in the beginning, this did seem a bit excessive. However, I found his argument compelling and the proposed legislation very reasonable: “Any person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm, shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this section shall be fined not more that $500.”
I believe most of us will choose to intervene, to help, to offer assistance, to call 911 instead of looking the other way or ignoring the situation.
However, there are some who need a law to compel them to do the right thing. This example solidified the concept for me and I support legislation. It is from a horrific gang-rape case at Vanderbilt University in 2013.
“The bystander [Mack Prioleau], a fellow football player, pretended to be asleep on the upper bunk while the victim was raped, sodomized and otherwise violated for over thirty minutes…He testified that he knew exactly what was going on but failed to intervene because the situation ‘made him uncomfortable.’ ….he was not charged with any crime , nor was he suspended from the university.”
Unbelievable.
So I did some research. If other witnesses are present, people are less likely to help a victim. This is called the Bystander Effect. To rephrase, ‘ the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that one of them will help.’ (Wikipedia)
Only 10 states have duty-to-act legislation: California, Florida, Hawaii,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Last year in 2018, the Utah legislature failed to pass a duty-to-assist bill sponsored by Rep. Brian King. I’m incredibly disappointed.
September 12, 2017
This was frustrating to read. I am intrigued by the example of the bystander in the Holocaust: how does the bystander (who is not directly victimized) act morally in opposition to the immoral acts of the state? This question is difficult and relevant, and the answer necessarily exists outside the legal system of that state.
However, that question is not addressed in this book. Somehow, this author reflects on the Holocaust and concludes that there is a legal solution to the bystander problem: the bystander must call the police! (This thesis makes his extremely justified criticism of the Holocaust bystanders sound more and more ridiculous. Don't be a bystander! Call the...SS? I'm mad at this book for making a criticism of bystanders in the Holocaust sound ridiculous.) There is no reflection on the limitations of the criminal justice system, on the findings of books like "The New Jim Crow" and the effects of increased criminalization, like the War on Drugs, on marginalized communities. There is no evidence presented that imposing criminal liability for bystanders who fail to contact the police will prevent violent crimes or necessarily help the victims.
The only effects of the proposed legislation that seem certain to me are (1) that our high incarceration rate would increase and (2) that ordinary citizens and residents would feel pressure to err on the side of initiating police involvement. Which sounds more like the next generation of German history.
However, that question is not addressed in this book. Somehow, this author reflects on the Holocaust and concludes that there is a legal solution to the bystander problem: the bystander must call the police! (This thesis makes his extremely justified criticism of the Holocaust bystanders sound more and more ridiculous. Don't be a bystander! Call the...SS? I'm mad at this book for making a criticism of bystanders in the Holocaust sound ridiculous.) There is no reflection on the limitations of the criminal justice system, on the findings of books like "The New Jim Crow" and the effects of increased criminalization, like the War on Drugs, on marginalized communities. There is no evidence presented that imposing criminal liability for bystanders who fail to contact the police will prevent violent crimes or necessarily help the victims.
The only effects of the proposed legislation that seem certain to me are (1) that our high incarceration rate would increase and (2) that ordinary citizens and residents would feel pressure to err on the side of initiating police involvement. Which sounds more like the next generation of German history.
February 11, 2018
The author is a lawyer, and can't seem to escape a "lawyerly" approach to his book on the role of bystanders in the holocaust. He also can't stay on topic, as he brings in other examples of bystanders failing to aid victims during crimes. I think this book was cathartic for the author, as his parents and grandparents were survivors and victims, respectively, of the holocaust, and he seems haunted by the circumstances of their persecution. That issue is why I was interested in the book and picked it up. Other than passing laws to require providing aid, the author has no solutions to offer to the problem. Sadly, there are too many echos of the situation America today-- I'm thinking of ICE deportations, and situations like Charlottesville. The current political climate promotes the "us versus them" and "outsider" mentality that emboldens people to victimize others (e.g. numerous reports of "go back to where you came from"). The Burke quote that "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" applies and accuses today.
January 1, 2022
There is a really powerful story in here about the author's family during the holocaust. Everyone who survived did because someone stepped up and helped them. The vast, vast majority of people who could have helped them did not help them.
There is also a raw story about the author himself; about times when he could have stepped up and did not, starting from when he was five years old and did not save his cousin from drowning. After finishing the book, he starts swimming for pleasure for the first time.
In between is a call for action: criminalize the failure of the bystander to act. Make us our brothers' keepers as a matter of law.
I kept wanting him to draw the connection between the agonizing and heroic tales from the holocaust and his call to action. The holocaust was legal. Those who helped the Jews were committing a crime. They did the right thing and are righteous among nations but they committed a crime. How does criminalizing the failure to intervene to stop an unlawful act respond to that?
I suspect, though I don't know, that such a law would largely criminalize the failure to stop domestic violence. I live in a nation that doesn't have an adequate social safety net for the victims of such violence. The report might spark a law enforcement response that would simply result in more violence. I wanted some discussion of that.
It's a short book and well worth the time. But it left me unsettled on a lot of levels.
There is also a raw story about the author himself; about times when he could have stepped up and did not, starting from when he was five years old and did not save his cousin from drowning. After finishing the book, he starts swimming for pleasure for the first time.
In between is a call for action: criminalize the failure of the bystander to act. Make us our brothers' keepers as a matter of law.
I kept wanting him to draw the connection between the agonizing and heroic tales from the holocaust and his call to action. The holocaust was legal. Those who helped the Jews were committing a crime. They did the right thing and are righteous among nations but they committed a crime. How does criminalizing the failure to intervene to stop an unlawful act respond to that?
I suspect, though I don't know, that such a law would largely criminalize the failure to stop domestic violence. I live in a nation that doesn't have an adequate social safety net for the victims of such violence. The report might spark a law enforcement response that would simply result in more violence. I wanted some discussion of that.
It's a short book and well worth the time. But it left me unsettled on a lot of levels.
April 24, 2025
There are compelling arguments for the necessity of bystander laws, but the need for their creation does not logically follow from the historical discussion of this book. Bystander laws rely on a state apparatus for intervention (i.e. call the police when you see someone else being harmed)… but what is one to do when the violence is on behalf of the state, as in the case of the Holocaust?
Incredibly interesting and compelling historical discussion, though
Incredibly interesting and compelling historical discussion, though
June 15, 2017
Thought provoking.
Compelling.
Compelling.
October 6, 2017
Extremely thought provoking.
December 7, 2017
The author needed a good editor to make this book readable and reduce the redundancy.
April 7, 2018
Good theory and ideas. Not well written. Redundant an scattered.
January 21, 2021
This is for research and I found a few ideas I hadn't previously known. It's more of an important, cathartic journey for the author, I feel, which he deserves.
April 20, 2021
I agree that bystander complicity should be a crime. I would rather live a short worthwhile life in service of more than myself than pass having lived essentially a worthless life in service of only my life. Why overprotect a life that will pass?! The stories and victims are too many which include inhumane bystander inaction.
March 5, 2019
As a U Alum, I receive their periodical magazines, and saw a blurb about this book. I had to read it.
This was essentially a 200+ page persuasive essay and I found it thought-provoking, engrossing, and compelling. Mr. Guiora is careful to consider what naysayers would say about his proposal: criminalizing bystanders that don't notify the authorities when a victim is in danger. The Holocaust was a fascinating and frightening context for which the book was laid out. I found my natural curiosity of people and their experiences allowing me to really enjoy this book. Sometimes I forget I had a minor in political science and that I really love the concepts of politics, if not the politics themselves. This is recommended for similar law-loving nerds like myself. :)
This was essentially a 200+ page persuasive essay and I found it thought-provoking, engrossing, and compelling. Mr. Guiora is careful to consider what naysayers would say about his proposal: criminalizing bystanders that don't notify the authorities when a victim is in danger. The Holocaust was a fascinating and frightening context for which the book was laid out. I found my natural curiosity of people and their experiences allowing me to really enjoy this book. Sometimes I forget I had a minor in political science and that I really love the concepts of politics, if not the politics themselves. This is recommended for similar law-loving nerds like myself. :)
May 28, 2018
thought provoking and well supported argument.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews