It is generally understood among members of certain types of social contracts that sticking up for each other is a requirement of the contract.
Most countries employ some form of the draft in times of war. Cities and states have police forces authorized by the constitution of the states to enforce the social contract of the state. Courts have the power to order people to serve on juries, appear as witnesses, testify, respond to questions, and produce evidence in the interest of justice. Government investigators, officers, and agents have the authority to make reasonable inquiries, reasonable searches, detain suspects, and issue reasonable orders that must be complied with in the pursuit and support of justice.
Armies, police forces, and government officials in democratic societies derive their authority to act on behalf of the people of the states from the people themselves. They are, in fact, required by the constitution of the states to act on behalf of the individual citizenry in the enforcement of the social contract.
In a functional democratic society, all citizens (members of the society) both expect and are expected to support the social contract and each other with various levels of enforcement that prohibit injustices against individuals and injustices against the group itself. This expectation and obligation of mutual support is not limited to injustices perpetrated against members of the social contract by outsiders. It necessarily includes both the expectation and obligation to address injustices perpetrated against members of the social contract by its own members in violation of the contract.
These expectations and obligations are very real. They are essential to the maintenance of the social contract, and thereby, the social order the contract maintains. They are actual requirements of a functional society ranging from the moral obligation to speak out in support of the principles of justice, to the exercise of lethal force in the pursuit of justice and accountability. The degrees and measures with which this range of authorized and obligatory energy (force) is used, in functional societies, is generally in keeping with a concept of conservative limits understood to be energy (force) that is not excessive to reasonably accomplish the goal of enforcement and maintenance of justice.
Excessive force employed in the maintenance of the social contract, itself, is viewed as an injustice and a violation or abuse of the very same social contract. Selectively willful disregard for the actuality of injustices within or against the society or individual members of the society, or classes of members of the society are also considered serious breaches or abuses of the social contract and abuses of individuals adversely impacted or unfairly supported. Such indifferences are, therefore, punishable under the terms of the social contract in functional societies.
The cohesive order of the society that is protected and maintained by the social contract cannot survive willful dismissive disregard for the obligation of appropriate responses to injustice. The popular meme "No justice, No peace" is derived from widespread understanding of the essential nature of the principle of justice and the acceptance of the social obligation of enforcement in the maintenance of justice for the preservation of the social order.
It is widely understood, in functional societies, that governments authorized to act on behalf of the members of the social order in support of the social order are obliged to do so. Failure to do so is correctly viewed as an impeachable offense against the terms of the social order for which the government officials ought to be censured (a formal public reprimand or statement of condemnation) in some cases or, in the most extreme cases, removed from office.
The widespread consistency with which this basic concept of duty to act in the interest of justice is accepted, adopted, and expected in social orders is a reflection of thousands of years of human experience that has resulted in the overwhelming accumulation of experiential knowledge that society cannot long be expected to survive without imploding on itself if justice is not actively supported by an acceptance of responsibility for that support by each and every member of the society.
Despite the fact that families, as the most basic of social units, are not so formally organized as governments, the relevance of the essential social principle of justice for all, and the expectations and obligations that apply to the maintenance and enforcement of justice for all, most certainly and definitely apply to families and each and every individual member of a functional family.
Families do not delegate the authority of the enforcement of the social contract to government and judicial officers. The fact that they do not, is not reasonably interpreted, by a functional family, to mean that the things that government and judicial officers do, on behalf of the people they serve, should not be done in families. They absolutely should be done every where and every time it is appropriate.
Each and every family member, in a functional family, has a moral duty to actively participate in and support the pursuit and maintenance of justice on behalf of each member of the family. This means they have a moral duty to speak out against the injustice of one family member toward another; to support proper, appropriate, fair, and thorough investigations into allegations of meaningful injustice; to speak out in support of the requirement of testimony, the production of evidence, the participation in fair and thorough hearings, evaluations, deliberations, rules, censures, statements, and anything else reasonably required in the pursuit of justice for all in the family without discrimination based on religious belief, conversational skill, social inconvenience, or presumed spiritual or any other type of supposed superiority or inferiority.
Justice absolutely matters. Inattentiveness to justice and all that it requires and entails in a family is a breach and an abuse of the social contract that is relevant to functional families and an abuse of any individual impacted by such indifference or dismissive disregard. Accordingly, those who shirk their moral duty to the maintenance of justice are guilty of undermining the social order of a family. Responsibility for the resulting dysfunctionality of the family lies squarely on their shoulders.
In the case of extreme, sustained, and prolonged injustice by coordinated, calculated, organized, or willful acquiescence and support for negligence of due process and fairness for a particular family member, such a family member becomes a victim of family abuse. As such they are exonerated from reciprocal family obligations by reason of the fact of that member's illegitimate functional excommunication or disfellowship status or exile that has been effected by such negligence.
This neglect is tantamount to a serious form of shunning and is widely recognized as abuse. Failure to reasonably support the pursuit of family justice, including all reasonable levels of investigation, responsiveness, appeal, and refraining from unreasonable or prejudicial judgment without fair and appropriate investigations and hearings of all sides of a matter, and appropriate disclosures of accusations and opportunities to confront an accuser, is an abuse against the affected family member, no less serious than any other widely recognized form of abuse.
Inasmuch as shunning is a serious form of abuse, the protest withdrawal of the abused party is absolutely appropriate, and, a reasonable response to the abuse when reasonable appeals are denied. All of the disfunction, including the withdrawal of support, participation, or availability of the abused party, lies at the feet of the abusers. The withdrawal of the abused, is the moral responsibility of the abusers, because it is a reasonable response to the abusive negligence. In the absence of appeal, or where appeal is treated with dismissive, disrespectful, and unwarranted disregard, withdrawal is the only effective "statement" left to the abused.