Dr. Jordan Peterson, renowned psychologist and author, recently weighed in on the so-called "Daniel Penny Effect," expressing concern over how the public's willingness to intervene during dangerous situations could be influenced following the acquittal of Daniel Penny.
Penny, a 26-year-old Marine veteran, was found not guilty of criminally negligent homicide for the subway chokehold death of Jordan Neely, who was reportedly high on synthetic marijuana known as K2 and shouting threats when he confronted Penny on the New York City subway.
"I think that's a good example of someone acting in accordance with his character," Peterson said of Penny's actions during the confrontation. He elaborated on the inherent risks involved when intervening to help someone else, indicating, "It's dangerous to interfere in a violent situation and you have to be a bit of a hero to do it and obviously Penny is in the category and that's something that's deeply characteristic of him," during his appearance on the show "The Ingraham Angle."
Despite acknowledging Penny's heroic actions, Peterson also discussed the broader societal impacts of the case and its potential to reshape public behavior. He asserted, "While I don’t believe people will act substantially differently as a result of Penny’s case...," explaining his stance on the entrenched attitudes toward criminal behavior and victimhood, particularly among political leftists. "That’s a very bad idea. … It’s not true. There are plenty of people who are in dire socioeconomic straits who aren’t criminal," he remarked.
Peterson continued, noting how the Penny case exemplifies broader critiques of liberal views on victimhood. He stated, "The comments about the Daniel Penny case are relevant… with regards to a critique of the left insofar as the left treats people as victims." He stressed, though, the futility of expecting significant behavior change as he said, "But they’re not relevant…in the medium or long term on people’s proclivity to help."
This analysis sparks questions about how people perceive criminals and their actions. Peterson argued, "That’s what happens when you treat criminals like they’re victims. Criminals are rational actors, by and large, and they take risk... as we’ve seen in California with the waves of shoplifting." He referred to California's decision to not prosecute thefts under $1,000, indicating this might pose risks to innocent victims who may hesitate to intervene.
He asserted, "Anyone with a criminal bent is going to feel that's a field day," reflecting on how leniency might embolden criminal behavior and make average citizens cautious about intervening. Peterson’s insights illuminate how legal and social policies influence public willingness to confront violence.
Concluding his remarks, Peterson offered practical advice for policymakers. "The best thing governments can do is increase the probability…that criminals will actually suffer the consequence of their actions and stop treating them as if they’re victims," he said. His comments provoked discussion about the societal responsibilities surrounding crime, intervention, and justice.
This case presents complex challenges for New Yorkers and beyond—balancing the instinct to help others with personal safety and the consequences of action. Perhaps the ultimate takeaway from Peterson’s analysis is a reminder of the unpredictable human dynamic at play when the law, morality, and societal perception intersect.
