I'm an idealist in principles and a realist in practice whilst constantly struggling to unite the two. The more I see of a backward and corrupt judicial system, the more I wonder about vigilantism. Vigilantism has historically been cast in an unethical light, but what 'hero of the people' has ever not been a vigilante? When principles are subverted....when the law fails..and the people suffer...does not one have a duty to make it right?

Charles Bronson - Death Wish series, Chuck Norris, Steven Segul and many others have played the popular vigilante role.
I will admit I am a fan of their idealism.

All fictional heroes can be described as vigilantes. I have conflicting interests here. One is the necessity of abiding by principle of 'rule of Law'...the other is the concession that the Law does not function as it should...that is...in the interest of common good, of peace and of justice. The Law is good and just in principle but if those entrusted with it do not enforce its principles then what good can it do the people?

Here's a case of a convicted child molester...he got a two year prison term for raping a child of about 5 years old...of course he denies any wrong doing and states that he only pled guilty to 'spare' the child a trial...never the less, he pled guilty and was convicted and sentenced to two years....after his release...he was kidnapped by five women, sexually assaulted and humiliated in public in an act of vigilante justice....three of the five women were indicted on rape and kidnapping charges..with each charge carrying a sentence of 3 to 10 years. Now this man served 2 years for raping a 5 year old child...but the women who repaid him 'eye for an eye'...3 to 10 years on each charge....

Edit: I forgot to mention that the child was his stepdaughter

This post has been edited by iwant2believe2: Mar 24 2008, 07:32 PM

The criminal justice system reacts most strongly not to real injustice, but when it feels that its authority has been undermined.

I agree, Andrew. The punishment meted out to vigilantes is more of a warning against vigilantism than about justice itself...a thing which it consistently falls short of when real injustices occur.

This post has been edited by iwant2believe2: Mar 24 2008, 07:33 PM

Those opposed to vigilantism will argue that it subverts rule of law and sets a dangerous condition for a lawless society. But this brings to mind the words of Martin Luther King Jr that "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." It would seem then that one has a moral responsibility toward vigilantism when the law is not just.

Is it wrong to take action to remove a sexual predator from the community? These men were 'set up' in a sting run by a vigilante group...which committed the greater wrong...the vigilantes or the men who willing took the bait?

Vigilante group, TV news channels draw fire for underage sex stings
http://www.rickross.com/reference/perverte...d_justice8.html

Yes it is wrong, it is hard to impossible to hold the people taking part in such orgs (like perverted justice) accountable if they do make a mistake. Further, they are only following justice to the extent of their ideals, while ideally, through the police justice follows the ideals of the people (since they elected the sheriff (etc), like I said though, ideally). While the inefficiencies and problems of the current system may be infuriating in many cases, I believe that it is better to try and fix these institutions, then to try and take matters into one's own hands.

As to which is worse, it is hard to say since you are really weighing the possible outcomes. Which is worse, for a 12 year old girl to be raped or a grown man's life to utterly ruined due to wrongful accusations and actions taken? (Personally I have a hard time adequately comparing the two)

The best solution, in my opinion, is to try and fix the institutions, which I feel would best be done from a legal perspective. There are so many problems with our current laws, and our elected officials are doing little to fix them, how much of this could be avoided by people getting more interested in politics? How many people actually look at the candidates for Sheriff or senator and then vote?

This post has been edited by ThePredator: Mar 24 2008, 08:19 PM

There's the crux of the problem....it rarely follows the ideals of the people...rule of law argues that we are a 'nation of laws, not of people'...



Revolution? Reform? How does one fix these institutions without taking matters into their own hands? Is violence a necessary element of vigilantism?



Yet, that makes it wrong on a presumed technicality...not on a matter of ethics. We must distinguish between 'letter of law' and 'spirit of law'. What mistake is made by causing the arrest of a man caught in the act of knowingly propositioning an underage person for sex?



You may have a hard time equating the two because they are different matters entirely. I certainly do. I'm not addressing the victim here but the objective of justice and its administration. The government is equally liable to commit the offense of wrongful conviction as is the vigilante group.

This post has been edited by iwant2believe2: Mar 24 2008, 08:51 PM

Politics is often viewed an ineffectual arena for reform considering that it is overburdened with private interests, financial constraints, corruption and tons of red tape.

The anti-vigilante viewpoint is at its most absurd perhaps in the UK, where the principle of self defense is not even respected. The government have sought to asure people that this is not the case, but there are a litany of cases that prove otherwise: if you harm somone who is carrying out a violent crime, you are in danger of going to prison. As a result, the nation is in fear of standing up to criminals and of intervening on behalf of weaker members of society (e.g. if one witnesses an assault, mugging, etc). In the US, if someone is intending to do you harm in your own home, you may shoot him dead. This is a just principle. At best here you are expected to indulge the assailant in a fair fight--if you were to shoot someone armed with a knife, say, in your own home, that would be "excessive force". And besides, do you not know that self defense is not a legitimate use of a firearm? And there is an enormous list of implements that the government has sought to disarm the populace of, most nothing more than pieces of metal machined into a certain shape, and others tools with dozens of other legitimate purposes. Anything that might put you one-up on an attacker is deemed an "offensive weapon". This is done under the auspices of reducing violent crime amongst gangs of youths, when they carry on using such weapons anyway, viewing the prospect of being caught with them merely an occupational hazard. Only the law-abiding citizen has been put-off.

My state permits a certain degree of vigilantism by law. For instance, it is ordered, by law, that a person take active measure to prevent the commission of a crime...including that of lawful arrest and up to shooting a 'fleeing felon'...however so ordered and guaranteed by law, when in practice the vigilante often suffers criminal prosecution...now isn't that f*cked up....

Isn't it a case of History is written by the victorious. If I take vigilante action in some place, and ultimately the actions, and result are viewed just, history is kind to me, if my actions are not viewed as just, then I am punished. So there is no absolute answer. If I mow down a bunch of bad guys that are hurting old people and kids, then popular opinion will be with me. If I mow down a bunch f bank managers, even though they may through there actions cause more pain and suffering than the previous, popular opinion will not be with me. Both are illegal, both punishable. The only real difference is popular opinion and your moral standpoint.

I guess I look at it on a case by case basis.

I can't outright endorse it, because there's so much room for error and lack of accountability, transparency, etc. I just don't trust individuals that much to say "Yes, let's just all take it upon ourselves to claim vengance for those who have been wronged."

But on the other hand, in specific circumstances, I don't disagree with it. I would, in theory at least, engage in that behavior myself under the right circumstances.

I'm of the same opinion. I don't openly advocate people taking vigilante measures, but when the law fails to provide the justice and protection that it promises...I can't actively discourage people from it. In my mind, the only abiding principle which separates the peace officer from the ordinary citizen is that the former is constrained by ethics and impartiality. Those constraints are desirable and necessary to law and order. Even so, I find myself distraught over the ineffectiveness of our ability to keep law and order and so find myself wishing that ethical people would take up the call of vigilantism. Its certainly a troublesome condition for me.

its revenge basically,wrong those who wronged you,part of the human and war like condition.it just continues the spiral of violence.....but if someone hurt my kids or family...i'd say f*** the law and cause them a much damage as possible.

In the case of a crime, the criminal justice system stands in the stead of the victim. Its primary objective is to exact justice for the victim. For whom it will mete out 'just' punishment to the victimizer. It provides for redress for the victim and subsequent retribution upon the person of the guilty. One can not deny that revenge is an element of retribution. Nor can one argue (not in my opinion anyway) that revenge is either inherently or necessarily immoral. Jurisprudence does not forbid revenge, recognizing, as it must, that such is intrinsic to the concept of 'justice for the wronged', rather, it tries to ensure that the retribution exacted will not be in excess and thus violate the rights of the guilty. It operates within the confines of its own laws. The Constitution forbids 'cruel and unusual punishment' and fears that the vigilante justice driven by emotion will violate the civil rights of the guilty. I am not in disagreement with this. However, it is the people which have imbued the State with the authority to act as the punisher in the victim's stead and to protect the people at large. When the State fails in its duty, should the State then be entitled to retaliate when the people usurp its authority? I don't believe it should. Further, I believe that when vigilantism squares with divine law (and by this I mean those human rights which are considered inherent and inviolable) but contradicts the moral laws imposed by society and the authorities entrusted with enforcing them, that the vigilantism is the more just of the two. So, again, I would call to mind the words of M. L. King., "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

This post has been edited by iwant2believe2: Mar 25 2008, 06:02 AM

I was told by a solicitor that apparently, if you saw someone fleeing a group of people and you are in the convenient position of walking towards them rather than chasing after them and you are told to stop him as he is a criminal and you make a citizen's arrest, you have committed a crime, irrespective of the person's own guilt. You have to have personally witnessed the crime to make a citizen's arrest. So by law you are obliged not to chase after a suspected criminal, unless you are amongst those who witnessed the crime.

The very desire for a vigilante speak volumes to the inadequate judicial system and laws.
I have always felt that punishment should be increased a lot, but stay time in prisons and jail be reduced. While this seems contradictary It is my belief that it would reduce crime.
I have always thought that any official of the law from politicians down to the street cop should pay triple for the same offense, for the simple reason, that they are to set the good example and promote peace among society. When they become the criminal, the example should be done to them.
If an innocent man is sent to prison due to sloppy police/detective work or an incompetent judge, then they should sit in prison the same amount of time as did the innocent.
Also , lets do as they do in Singapore, Malaysia and others, a lot of caning. They do not have quite the crime problem there.

These are some of my thoughts.
They may not be popular, but so beit.