Renowned psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson recently discussed the potential impact of the Daniel Penny case on bystander intervention. Penny, a Marine veteran, was acquitted in the death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man who was exhibiting erratic and threatening behavior on a New York City subway. The case sparked a debate about the legal and ethical implications of intervening in such situations.

Peterson, appearing on "The Ingraham Angle," characterized Penny's actions as heroic, emphasizing the inherent risks involved in intervening in violent situations. He suggested that Penny's actions reflected his character and commended his willingness to step in.

While acknowledging the "Daniel Penny Effect" – the potential chilling effect on bystander intervention due to fear of legal repercussions – Peterson expressed skepticism about its long-term impact. He argued that while the case has generated considerable discussion, it's unlikely to significantly alter people's inherent inclination to help others in distress.

Peterson also critiqued what he perceives as the political left's tendency to view criminals as victims. He argued that this perspective is inaccurate and counterproductive, asserting that many individuals facing socioeconomic hardships do not engage in criminal behavior. He emphasized the importance of holding criminals accountable for their actions and argued that increasing the likelihood of consequences is the most effective approach to deterring crime. He cited California's policy of not prosecuting shoplifting under $1,000 as an example of a misguided approach that encourages criminal activity.