posted
to impose vigilante justice. I'm curious how others here view vigilante justice in general. I've come to the realization that it is frowned upon by most of the civilized world today, and vs. my inclinations, that strikes a definite discord. Certainly I believe in the benefit of the doubt, guilty until proven innocent and beyond a reasonable doubt. I also oppose the death penalty. Furthermore, I'm generally a non-judgemental, open-minded, forgiving person. I'm not the type of person who would kill rather than be robbed, and far be it from me to say an eye for an eye. But if a sane adult male murdered without signifigant provocation or raped a member of my family or a close friend and I thought that I knew he did it, there would be no need for a trial, or even investigation. Neither do I have any compunctions about beating the living tar out of one who commited a lesser offense of the same nature. Does this make me a bloody savage? Or disrespectful of the democratic justice system? If I'm in the minority here I wonder why. Go ahead, fire away and please don't worry about offending me, I won't act all pissy, I want to know the truth.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sibling of mine was raped and I know exactly who did it and suspect they may have done the same thing to other people in the area. I don't think I've ever been more blinded with rage than I was upon finding out. Just last night I actually dreamt about laying waste to these two perverts. I think that's how I realize my wishes to do violence, I dream about the actions.
That said, I would never take matters into my own hands. My own selfish need for revenge is not worth the anguish it would cause my sibling. And, to be honest, nor is worth the guilt, regret, and loss of respect for myself that I know I would feel after having acting out on those passions.
I realize that I didn't answer your question about how it fits into the legal system, nor did I judge you like you want to be judged. I guess I just don't feel like it. Thinking about this still makes me mad, even now.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that you are able to raise these questions and have doubts about what is appropriate show that you have a conscience and a sense of right and wrong.
This shows that you can use the self restraint and self control needed to not be reactionary. It shows that you realize vigilantism, revenge and vengeance are petty, stupid, and wrong.
Allow your conscience to be your guide. Remember, however, not to be a doormat who allows others to take advantage of you. Remember also that there is redress for major wrongs through the court system.
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only way I could ever take this kind of vigilante action would be in the heat of the moment. If I ever had time to think it over, cool down, etc., I know I couldn't bring myself to do it.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I realize that I didn't answer your question about how it fits into the legal system, nor did I judge you like you want to be judged."
No biggy, appreciate your sharing.
"The fact that you are able to raise these questions and have doubts about what is appropriate show that you have a conscience and a sense of right and wrong."
Thx.
"The only way I could ever take this kind of vigilante action would be in the heat of the moment"
Well I'm not saying I would wait long, or not be angry, but if not under control, then I'd being doing murder through temporary insanity, and it would cause the subject considerable more pain than what I had in mind as justice.
"Just out of curiosity, why would only a male be subject to your vigilantism for murdering a loved one?"
Good question, that. It is because I am far more reluctant to attack or destroy someone I do not view as generally capable of defending themselves, and so I would tend to wait till after the trial if I chose to act. Additionally, I, being a man, know how men think, and more or less their motives and psychological methods for doing things, and I lack understanding of that in women, therefore, since motives and my own certainty are crucial to me making this kind of judgement, I would be far more reluctant to act.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The reason for taking such actions would really be an important point for me. If you're going out to beat the crap out of a person because they hurt someone you cared about and you want revenge, then it should not be done. Its becoming just like them, taking your pain out on them.
On the other hand, if you've already tried regular justice systems, and they have failed to work to protect a loved one from the potential of further harm from that person, and all other methods don't seem likely to be enough, and you are going to beat that person up with reasonable belief that the beating will result in a loved one being safe from them in the future-note, you'd have to be pretty sure that loved one wouldn't suffer repercussions from you beating the person up-then I can see instances where it would be acceptable.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There seems to be a misunderstanding here, Toretha.
"The reason for taking such actions would really be an important point for me. If you're going out to beat the crap out of a person because they hurt someone you cared about and you want revenge..."
That is not the case I'm talking about. This is not a matter of revenge, from my standpoint.
"On the other hand, if you've already tried regular justice systems..."
That's not the case I'm talking about either. If the legal system fails to convict the guilty, it is often enough the duty of the individual to act independently. I don't feel any need to dicuss this case.
Also to clarify, by the way, that I'm primarily, though not exclusively, asking about more than just a "hurt" victim, and so the offender would not have to worry about getting a crap beating, as I would bypass that part if at all possible.
"here is the question I would ask-why?"
Given that I am certain of his guilt, There are a number of reasons I can present that seem good enough rationale to me individually. 1. There's always a fair chance that he might get away. 2. The stress of a court of law can be very severe for victims and/or loved ones and they will have suffered enough already, and also I question the validity of a murder trial that will be long and probably humiliating when you already know you are right. If I can offer clear, controled, cold proof to myself, than that is good enough for me, otherwise, the question is moot. 3. Immediacy may be required for my own self-respect and for the self- respect and confidence of all my loved ones, including the victim if still alive. 4. He may strike again, and then it will be too late.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If the legal system fails to convict the guilty, it is often enough the duty of the individual to act independently."
Here's the thing, sun: you don't have the right to determine guilt. Period. You haven't earned it. You aren't in a place and don't hold a position that has been imbued by society with the right and opportunity to make this decision on behalf of society itself.
And that's the key. When society punishes someone for a crime, society is doing it -- not the individuals involved. If society does not find that individual guilty, or does not punish that individual in a way you find fitting, you do NOT have the right to act independently in this regard.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know of a man here in Britain who killed the man who killed his child. The murderer had never been convicted as there was not enough evidence, but it was widely known that he had done it.
The father was charged and tried. There was significant evidence that he had killed the man, a smoking gun as it were, but the jury banded together and found him not guilty anyway, because they agreed with what he had done.
I don't know whether on not they were morally right to do this. But at the same time, if I had been on that jury, I know that I would have done what they did. And if I were in the same position that that parent was in (god forbid) I think I would do what he did too, and it would be worth it, whatever the cost.
It's strange, because at the same time I am strongly against capital punishment. I don't believe that death is the highest form of vengeance. But if I KNEW that there was a murdered out there who could strike again, who could not be stopped but the law, would it not be my duty to stop them if I were personally involved?
Posts: 119 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From TD's post: "Here's the thing, sun: you don't have the right to determine guilt. Period"
I assume you are not just talking about me personally. Interesting opinion, you seem to be implying that society and position supercede ultimate morality- forgive me if I misinterpret.
"When society punishes someone for a crime, society is doing it..."
But I'm not talking about punishment or revenge, I don't believe in either. I'm talking(I hope) about logical, justifiably neccessary, action.
"you do NOT have the right to act independently in this regard."
I do not have the legal right, nor would I advocate that such a thing become a legal right, as it would probably do far more harm than good. The potential for misuse of such a legislation would be massive, I am simply saying that I would not be one of the vast majority who would mis-use it.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From S+S's post, edited for typos : [But if I KNEW that there was a murderer out there who could strike again, who could not be stopped by the law, would it not be my duty to stop them if I were personally involved?]
I would say yes, and I am pretty sure there are many that would agree, even if TD is not one of them My original question, though, I am pretty sure that there are relatively few that would agree with me. Action before trial. And I would not do that for just anybody either.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The murderer had never been convicted as there was not enough evidence, but it was widely known that he had done it."
Nope. You don't get to play that game.
Here in America, we have a legal presumption of innocence. In other words, if the guy isn't found guilty due to a lack of evidence, you don't get to say stuff like "it was widely known that he had done it."
Ergo, that man who killed him killed an INNOCENT man, not the man who'd killed his daughter. That's how social justice WORKS, I'm afraid.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
A specific person committed that murder, and his identity is not changed by the collective vote of a jury or the determination of a judge. That man, whoever he is, is guilty no matter what anyone says.
Now for practical purposes, it's true that we can't usually tell easily whodunnit, and for that reason we have a legal procedure to help us figure that out. And it's true that a person is assumed to be innocent, for the purposes of the procedure, for the safety of those who are in fact innocent. But that presumption does not make it factually true, any more than the presumption of a null hypothesis in a scientific experiment makes the null hypothesis correct.
Now I am not going to come out in favor of vigilantism, because I believe that under the vast majority of circumstances society is better served by functioning courts, even if it means a small number of guilty people go free. But there is such a thing as guilt and such a thing as innocence that courts can only observe--not create.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha. I like Tom's world. Just so I'm clever enough not to get caught, I can do anything I want with no guilt what so ever. Woo hoo.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
...so when are the costumed superhero people going to make an appearance?! They say movies, books and tv are bad because kids imitate them but 60 years of costumed heroes in comics and movies and nix on anyone fighting crime in a mask!
posted
The way I see it with vigilante justice.. is that there are many times that I wish I did, that I wish we all could. The thing is as I see it I have no right to judge another manner. In all honesty a nation most likely doesn't either, but its a better entity to do so than I. I have no credibility in that department, especially if I am angry.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: TomDavidson: And that's the key. When society punishes someone for a crime, society is doing it -- not the individuals involved.
While I agree that a collection of unaffilated people determining guilt or innocence is a more accurate than a single potentially-biased individual, I belive that "society" has no more legitimacy than a single person in such matters. How is it that a bunch of random off-the-street people can legitimately judge a person and potentially signing off on their death? If it weren't a reasonably accurate means of generating results, it would be a perposterous concept. Unfortunately, my view is a vast minority when it comes to social justice, so I'd rather not get into it.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By participating in society and receiving those privileges which that status entails, we tacitly agree to uphold the attendant obligations. One of those obligations is to be answerable to a properly appointed judge (and jury of one's appropriately selected peers, when applicable) undue due process of law and with adequate legal representation.
That is, we agree to be answerable to the selected representatives of society, not to any particular individuals. It is an important point, as any given individual who wishes for us to be answerable to him alone is very likely to be unduly biased in his judgement.
posted
Cool. Vigilante justice is ok, so long as we're willing to play courtroom poker with a judge and 12 friends.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing magical about 12 jurors and a judge, but it does avoid a lot of the potential problems of vigilantism:
1.) Vigilante punishments almost must be limited to death, maiming, or coporal punishments. I suppose there could be "fines" given out by stealing property from the accused, but it doesn't seem workable. Who gets to keep the money?
2.) The criminal trial process is designed to make sure as much relevant evidence as possible comes out. Vigilante justice, by it's nature, is either a mob, in which no real hearing is possible, or a single person, who is taking a life and death decision with no check on his assumptions or personal interpretations of the evidence.
3.) Vigilante justice almost always involves someone affected by the crime. Impartiality is next to impossible.
4.) The use of legally trained judge and advocates allows lessons learned over the last two millenia to be taken advantage of. Every mob is starting from scratch.
5.) The use of jurors gets the input of "average" citizens (ideally) who are not jaded by constant exposure to criminals.
posted
Yeah, but let's not forget all those times when some civilian somewhere is SURE that somebody committed a crime. Why SHOULDN'T he get to mete out punishments to the world as he sees fit? After all, it's his RIGHT as a free individual to kill and maim those he suspects of things, right?
posted
"After all, it's his RIGHT as a free individual to kill and maim those he suspects of things, right?"
No, suspicion has nothing to do with it. That's not even vigilante justice, it's vigilante revenge.
Dagonee, or anybody, If you want to argue about the rightness of vigilante justice, go ahead, but make sure that you leave me out of it. Mob rule is not something you'll find me supporting, nor do I think trial by jury is a bad thing, nor do I think there should be a law providing for what I am talking about, nor do I think it is right in the general case. I do think, however, that it is possible for a person to be right and know it, maybe you don't maybe you think so, maybe you think that only a person with a legal education can be right, or that only twelve people acting at the same time can be right(by the way, yah wanna talk about mob rule, the way things are set up now, juries convict far more innocent than they let guilty go, three members of my immediate family have been on jury duty-grand as well as petit- at least once and I assure you their experiences have been anything but democratic, more like feeding frenzy), but I hold that it is quite possible for an indivdual, simple person to be right because he used simple, logical thought to arrive at the conclusion. Of course it is also possible for an individual to be wrong, but that is entirely a different issue, and it depends greatly on the individual And SO, my question IS, IF YOU ASSUME THAT(it is quite possible for an indivdual, simple person to be right because he used simple, logical thought to arrive at the conclusion.) TO BE CORRECT, does that person then have the right to act on that information in a way that may be, well, not quite Christian. I would definitively say that if the justice system tries and fails, and something still needs to be done, do it- pretty simple. What about before the trial though? As Dagonee so eloquently and more or less correctly pointed out in his last post critisizing vigilante justice(1), death is not really much of a substitute for prison, it is an elimination of the problem rather than really correcting it, whereas prison could be argued to have a chance of correcting. Does this chance outweigh the benefits of quick definitive action? For a high crime, not directly provoked, against me and my blood-family and friend-family, I, Personally, say no- probably not. When it comes to a lesser crime, I would think the problem less urgent but also would have a more corrective measure of vigilante discipline, so hard call.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sun, the point I've been trying to make, without subtlety, is that one of the biggest problems with vigilante justice is that society does not, as a rule, trust any one random individual's take on the matter enough to bestow upon that person the right to take matters into his own hands.
The point, in other words, is that even when you "know" someone raped your daughter, you could in fact be wrong. And you don't have the RIGHT to act on your suspicion -- which is not, as much as you insist otherwise, considered true "knowledge" or "proof" by society.
If you don't give a whit for the laws of society, then of course this shouldn't matter to you. But you should then be shot like a dog in the street, by your own logic, as you're much a danger to society as any other common violent criminal.
First, my remark was aimed at the general sceptisicm people seem to have for juries nowadays. Second, I was trying to add several practical considerations that had not been addressed in the thread. I think Tom's normative arguments are fascinating, but they are not the only ones to be made about vigilantism in general.
Finally, I'm at a loss as to why you would say something like, "Dagonee, or anybody, If you want to argue about the rightness of vigilante justice, go ahead, but make sure that you leave me out of it." You started a thread about vigilantism. I didn't even post an argument against you - my post was prompted by Richard Berg's and wasn't even a refutation of it, just a comment. Again, this is a discussion forum.
If all you want is a specific answer to the question of what to do when someone know's they're right and has no hope of justice or protection from the law, I'd have to say Tom's arguments seem more persuasive to me. But you posted a thread about an interesting topic, and I'd hate to see it limited to a hypothetical that purposely avoids the true issues. I realize you did this to distill the discussion to the point you thought most important, which is certainly a valid discussion technique. But the other issues being discussed are interesting, too.
Dagonee P.S., And I certainly never said only people with a legal education can be right about these issues. In fact, one of the reasons I support juries is that I think people without legal educations can make judgments that people with one can't.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right - I was going to stay out of this one, but I feel compelled to speak.
Having walked walked in on a person sexually abusing an infant, and after having taken the "appropriate" actions of reporting said incident, pursuing appropriate legal restraining orders, etc., to protect the infant - and then having to to wait for a judge and court to decide that the person was abusive (this took several more abuse episodes, with enforced unsupervised visitation) the infant - now toddler by this point in time - was taken to the hospital for significant amounts of blood in the diaper). And then, the courts would listen to the mother's concerns and fears.
I have to say that a shotgun would have been FAR more effective and the child in question would have suffered FAR less. And frankly - who GIVES a s**t about the abuser, in that case? Or the courts - or guardian ad litem, or jury . . .
Societal justice is hardly justice oriented. It is based on the dollars available to each side to purchase legal representation, etc.
I really think we have gone a little far in "American" society. In centuries past, the victim had a few rights to societal protection and justice. Nowadays - it's the perpetrator. Any vitim rights are still mostly a matter of words on paper, they aren't applied uniformly and our penal system does not exactly punish nor reform. It's just a holding tank for the furthering of anti-social behaviors.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the question for me is not whether I should be exonerated for a vigilante crime, but at what point I'd be willing to take my medicine if I felt compelled to commit such a crime. I would never undertake it with the hope that a jury would find me not guilty. I don't generally believe in capital punishment, though, so I don't think I could justify a vigilante crime either.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Warning, dangerously long and frequently boring post ahead! May I suggest we lighten up a little folks?
"If you don't give a whit for the laws of society, "then of course this shouldn't matter to you." "But you should then be shot like a dog in the street," "by your own logic,"
"as you're much a danger to society as any other common violent criminal."
Ok, Tom, you're out in the open now, and I'm going to peg you down. So my in-order response: Correct; Correct; perhaps correct, though I would argue; perhaps correct taken to a special case, and then I'd probably not endeavor to argue; Absolutely flat ass wrong, and I most certainly could prove it. I am not saying here that I could control the mind of a jury and have them definitely choose to believe the latter, I am saying...(hehheh, edited out, because I said I'd be nice to you guys, where's my halo when I need it ) Basically I am saying that if I went through with such an act, I could quite easily have the rest of my life as proof that I was not as "much a danger to society as any other common violent criminal", and if I had been as right as I personally would have to be to do such an act, then I would be morally in the clear.
From zee post of zir Dagonee: "You started a thread about vigilantism."
Try reading the thread title, it was said that way for good reason, yah know... so I would have to disagree. I started this thread with the basic assumptions that vigilantism is almost always wrong, but, like EVERYTHING, has its time and place- this thread is about the time and the place.
"I didn't even post an argument against you"
Hey, buddy, I know that, and I honestly value your input. I tried to tone down my wording sorry I evidently left it a little to strong. By the way, I know you're holding back, what is your argument against me? . Seriously I want to know what you have to say. Surely you don't exactly agree precisely with Tom? I'd like to hear your unique viewpoint, and I'll try really hard not to be a piss-ant. Heck, you inspired this thread!
"And I certainly never said only people with a legal education can be right about these issues."
And I never said you did. I'm not too into subtlety, so with my posts you've generally got to learn to not read between the lines, K? It has been the source of a lot of the misunderstandings between us. <see like there that is not an accusation, just my perception of what is probably true.
"I realize you did this to distill the discussion to the point you thought most important, which is certainly a valid discussion technique"
Glad that you recognize that.
"But the other issues being discussed are interesting, too."
Again, you're reading between the lines excessively, and again, I probably used a bit too forceful of wording. Didn't want to surpress free speech, just wanted to clear my name of unconditionally or generally supporting vigilantism. If I had wanted to surpress free speech, you see, I would have told everybody to shut-up, in so many words. Clear now?
quote: All right - I was going to stay out of this one, but I feel compelled to speak.
Yeah, well thanks Shan, for me anyway, it's nice to know. Because even if I'm not asking to be agreed with here, as TD rightly said while trying(I might add failing) to give proof for his point: "one of the biggest problems with vigilante justice is that society does not, as a rule, trust any one random individual's take on the matter enough to bestow upon that person the right to take matters into his own hands." and so if you vouch for vigilante justice in any case whatsoever, there are probably going to be a hell of people who disagree with you. Which I presume that by Tom's logic, that means you are automatically wrong- no offense meant, Tom- and there are many people in this world a lot dumber than Tom. Basically, I'm really kind of glad you posted because in thirty posts you're the only person who's directly supported my originally stated view. And yeah I'm definitely ammending what I said about 'only for friends and family' to apply to cases such as the one above, where no one else is doing a thorough job of looking out for justice.
OK, thread's gone full circle, I got the last word, now everybody can shut-up. j/k Only if you really want to. *goes off to don vigilante psycho garb to fulfill phase one of the bit about being a "common violent criminal"*
Yours, suntranafs, KKK, senior rep.
P.S. Dagonee, still don't read between the lines, that was just me lieing like a dog. Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Basically I am saying that if I went through with such an act, I could quite easily have the rest of my life as proof that I was not as 'much a danger to society as any other common violent criminal...'"
Odd that you aren't willing to extend the same courtesy to the man you just hypothetically killed, based on your own suspicions. Any reason why another passing vigilante, on seeing you kill that guy stone-cold dead without any apparent provocation, shouldn't shoot YOU dead?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I do believe that vigilante justice is wrong, I think it is a mistake to imbue "society" with too many "holy" rights regarding the application of justice.
Who exactly is this "society" that you are talking about? The ones that think it is ok to execute criminals or the ones that have outlawed capitol punishment?
Tom said: "And that's the key. When society punishes someone for a crime, society is doing it -- not the individuals involved. If society does not find that individual guilty, or does not punish that individual in a way you find fitting, you do NOT have the right to act independently in this regard."
I agree with Tom here, but I have to wonder at what separates "society" from "mob justice"?
In other words, if your state (i.e. your "society") is pro-Death Row then you can protest all you want, but as long as the "society" says it is ok, then it is!
What do you think?
Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I have to wonder at what separates 'society' from 'mob justice?'"
The rule of law. And that's all, really. If your society grants you the right to, as an individual, judge whether someone else should live or die, that's a right you now have.
ALL rights are granted in this fashion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cool. Vigilante justice is ok, so long as we're willing to play courtroom poker with a judge and 12 friends.
???
quote: ... properly appointed judge ... appropriately selected peers ... under due process of law and with adequate legal representation.
The leap is a non sequitur to me, Richard. Was your comment thought to be an accurate representation of what I said? I don't get your point. Courtroom poker?
What is non-vigilante justice, if it is not justice obtained by appeal to a "properly appointed judge and/or appropriately selected peers under due process of law and with adequate legal representation?"
posted
Shan, I am terrifically disappointed if eyewitness of actions that were unmistakably and unequivocally sexual abuse of a child did not lead to permanent removal of a child from that person's sole care. This would mean that the system failed this child in several dozen ways.
I'd add as a caveat, though, that there are many reasons to find blood in a diaper, and many times things aren't as straightforward as they may seem.
(Mind you, I'm not on the side of defending child abuse -- I act as a medical assessor and advocate for children in possible cases of abuse, and I have testified in court against people I believed to have done so. On the other hand, I've seen things which seemed absolutely clear-cut to me in the beginning turn out to be not so clear cut after more information has been gathered.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Any reason why another passing vigilante, on seeing you kill that guy stone-cold dead without any apparent provocation, shouldn't shoot YOU dead?"
If he had connections to the guy who died, or if there wasn't anybody else doing anything, no. I qualified that in my post. If he can prove with a logical surety that I did it and was unprovoked, which he can't, then he can go ahead and fire away.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: On the other hand, I've seen things which seemed absolutely clear-cut to me in the beginning turn out to be not so clear cut after more information has been gathered
So have I, and so I check and recheck every scrap of information before I ever make any serious action. The professional opinion is great, but rarely a substitute for first hand experience...
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi CT! I know things can get pretty muddled, but when I see guardian ad litem's refuse to A) put the child's safety and well-being first, particularly a non-verbal child and B) refuse to investigate ALL involved parties until a judge directly orders her to and C) have additional information about subsequent incidences (which I didn't share earlier - sorry - such as applying salves for diaper rash under the foreskin area and anally) then I really don't question the blood and the linkage to sexual abuse and concurrent physical abuse. There's more but I won't go into it all - it's pretty squicky.
As a matter of fact, there'a another case I worked on where the infant had been severely BITTEN all over her body by some one of her caregivers. In this case, the deputy and PA were desperately trying to get funds to pay for dental molds to provide conclusive evidence of WHO did this.
Victim advocacy as a line of work was too stressful for me, because frankly, I'd as soon remove the threats and save some tax payer dollars on perpetual court appeals and upkeep of people that frankly deserve to speedily removed from society on a permanent basis. But then - that's why I worked in the advocacy fieed rather than with DAs. *Shudders*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, I realize your post is mostly arguing that we should deal with the original crime in an organized courtroom, because the nature of crime in a society dictates that we judge it collectively.
However, that also implies that we should deal with vigilante actions in the same manner, even if the vigilantes themselves don't subscribe to the ideal model. It's like the old adage "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Well, I think a lot of potential vigilante enforcers might view the time as a worthy price for acting as they felt was right, especially if they are given the chance to use the very system they subverted to convince a judge/jury of their legitimacy. This flexibility is not necessarily undesireable, but it's kind of a paradox if you think that simply "agreeing to be answerable" is a structure that opposes vigilanteism.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If he can prove with a logical surety that I did it and was unprovoked, which he can't, then he can go ahead and fire away..."
Except that you are ALREADY reserving for yourself the right to act once you have "proven" it to YOURSELF. You have already renounced the need to prove it to anyone else's satisfaction.
So why does this hypothetical second vigilante need to do any more research? He's seen you kill a man in cold blood. Is it unfair of him to reach a verdict, based on the evidence he's seen -- in exactly the same way you have?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah see I would not neccessarily disagree with a motion that I should be locked up for taking the law into my own hands, at least if it were strictly neccessary to make the point. The point being to not have people saying "well he got away with it..." and then getting away with something they shouldn't.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Except that you are ALREADY reserving for yourself the right to act once you have "proven" it to YOURSELF. You have already renounced the need to prove it to anyone else's satisfaction."
You quote proven, and I wonder why. Logic holds if there is one witness or a thousand. The second vigilante could not prove there was no definite signifigant provocation because there most certainly was.
"So why does this hypothetical second vigilante need to do any more research?"
Because quite frankly and obviously, there is more research to do.
"He's seen you kill a man in cold blood. Is it unfair of him to reach a verdict, based on the evidence he's seen -- in exactly the same way you have?"
You raise a fair point here, but if I escape after the killing, then he will have some homework to do, in the course of which, if he is fair, he will uncover enough of the truth not to act. On the other hand, if he quickly kills me before I retreat, then he will have done something that I did not, he will have acted in haste. Also remember, that if he is to be set on the same moral ground as I, he has to know and love the individual(or have evaluated that there is no one else to act, which he will not immediately be able to do) that commited the original violent act. If he does love that individual, then if he acts in haste he will almost definitely not be acting with a clear head, but out of insane rage or defensive reflexes, and rarely would there be an exception. If he's acting out of defensive reflexes, then that's my own darned fault, I should have been more careful, if out of an insane rage, then that's on a moral par with manslaughter, or possibly not guilty through temporary insanity. So, if he acts in haste, the difference, Tom? He'd think he was doing the right thing when he acted, but I would be when I did.
To be sure, the road to hell is pave with good intentions alone, but not with good logic, good facts, and good intentions.
posted
So you are, then, assuming for yourself the ability to always act in a perfectly just fashion? You presume, in this hypothetical situation, that you are incapable of incorrect judgement?
I think you might find that other people are less willing to grant this presumption. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not too keen on vigilantism, but I really see little moral difference between it and "society" punishing someone. If society is only the people in it then its laws and punishments are nothing more than mob vigilantism. If it is something other than that, then it would seem to be an obstacle more than a moral authority.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I think people are ignoring in this discussion (or not explicitly making clear) is that society's role in criminal justice is more than just preserving the moral authority to punish.
It has also established the process under which such punishment is to be dispensed. This process has been developed over centuries, with protections being added in response to perceived injustices. Since no process is perfect, it has decided to institute a process biased toward producing false negatives. A guilty person (in the sense of a person who "did it," not someone found guilty) is far more likely to be let go than an innocent person is to be found guilty.
Society has decided to strike this balance because of the inherent potential for abuse. This definition of "due process" is as much a moral calculation as the decision about what punishment is due for what acts. This has become so ingrained that guilty has taken on the meaning "found guilty" in casual conversation, as we've seen in this thread.
A vigilante is, by definition, substituting his own process for the due process guaranteed by society's criminal justice framework. And there's no basis for believing and that any individuals process for assigning criminal penalties is more just than the one reached by centuries of sometimes painful lessons. We've learned recently that fingerprints can match but not belong to the suspect.
Even fabled DNA evidence isn't as fundamentally infallible indicative of guilt as we've been lead to believe. See this article on the Prosecutor's Fallacy for an example.
Due process should not be considered "technicalities." We as a society have decided that only people convicted of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt within this process should receive criminal penalties. A vigilante is not correcting a fault in the system, he is deciding to place himself outside the system.
Even the so-called easy case for vigilantism, where the death is necessary to protect a loved-one, is not acceptable, mainly because it amounts to pre-judgment by an individual. If someone is willing to murder someone else, they should be willing to help protect the possible victim in other ways.
One of the reasons I support the right to bear arms is that so self-defense becomes a plausible possibility so pre-emptive action isn't necessary.
posted
"So you are, then, assuming for yourself the ability to always act in a perfectly just fashion?"
Only in this case, Tom, and I don't know nothing about "perfectly"-you're taliking religion there bud- and it's not like I'd be able to make a decision like this every day.
"You presume, in this hypothetical situation, that you are incapable of incorrect judgement?"
Yes. :)j/k In no situation do I presume that, hypothetical or otherwise. Fortunately I do not have to in this case or in any case, hypothetical or actual, otherwise I would never do anything at all. I would, however, have to be willing to assume that I was the most correctly judging person able to act at the appropriate time.
quote: So you are, then, assuming for yourself the ability to always act in a perfectly just fashion? You presume, in this hypothetical situation, that you are incapable of incorrect judgement?
I find society frequently incapable of acting in such as fashion as well. Those special interest groups, power blocs and wielders of large sums of dollars seem to set the tone and pace of societal direction, whether it be in law-making, interpretation or just desserts.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
: ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
j/k![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I don't get your point. Courtroom poker?![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
I know things can get pretty muddled, but when I see guardian ad litem's refuse to A) put the child's safety and well-being first, particularly a non-verbal child and B) refuse to investigate ALL involved parties until a judge directly orders her to and C) have additional information about subsequent incidences (which I didn't share earlier - sorry - such as applying salves for diaper rash under the foreskin area and anally) then I really don't question the blood and the linkage to sexual abuse and concurrent physical abuse. There's more but I won't go into it all - it's pretty squicky.
