Vigilante Justice

[ardillacid]

Thank you very much sir

[Resurrexi]

I voted for "moral in certain circumstances, but those circumstances are fairly rare".

[Ed Normile]

Vigilante justice is never moral, when justice is levied by hot heads riled up for a cause it can never be moral. People complain about the death penalty, at least those who die from it have had the benefits of the court system and years of repeals, and occasionally there is still someone wrongly put to death. How can a spur of the moment type of justice enacted when emotions are high ever be a moral thing?

ed

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='09 July 2010 - 03:38 AM' timestamp='1278657498' post='2139770']
Vigilante justice is never moral, when justice is levied by hot heads riled up for a cause it can never be moral. People complain about the death penalty, at least those who die from it have had the benefits of the court system and years of repeals, and occasionally there is still someone wrongly put to death. How can a spur of the moment type of justice enacted when emotions are high ever be a moral thing?

ed
[/quote]

Vigilantism does not necessarily have to be pursued in a rage or result in murder. If it is pursued in such away it is definitely imprudent if not flat out wrong. Vigilante justice can be pursued calmly and rationally; I'd imagine.


[quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 July 2010 - 03:20 AM' timestamp='1278656456' post='2139743']
I voted for "moral in certain circumstances, but those circumstances are fairly rare".
[/quote]

I agree. Would peaceful protests (doing what is right but what is against the law or doing what the law refuses to do but should) count? I think so, though such cases won't be black and white probably and such things really have to be taken into specific consideration, unless of course Batman shows up because then we know it is right.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2TqcK_9ujw&feature=related[img]http://api.ning.com/files/npJ*K*02XuYa3sBLoOfMUP64MF3jdVAwcLS7EixYA2*NHzg05*I5A7AwpTl2P4HNAJCHrCkRWAUIZdfI2ZOB5IwRtBOrjgfJ/1141983batman_batman_chuck_norris_predator_demotivational_poster_1260417903_super.jpg[/img][/media]
(sorry couldn't help it)

Edited July 9, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Jesus_lol]

only when you have your own TV show

[img]http://filmmakermagazine.com/loadandplay/uploaded_images/061220_dexter-746207.jpg[/img]

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

doub oops.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='09 July 2010 - 04:06 AM' timestamp='1278659199' post='2139796']
only when you have your own TV show

[img]http://filmmakermagazine.com/loadandplay/uploaded_images/061220_dexter-746207.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Batman would so own Dexter.

[img]http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd243/cyberlink420/Motivational%20Posters/BatmanWins.jpg[/img]
because Chuck Norris never fought the Predator!

Edited July 9, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Sternhauser]

Strange how heroes, such as Batman, with his torturing (Batman Begins, dangling and threatening to kill the man unless he gave him information,) and then the newest movie, where he tortures the Joker,) and baking criminals (Batman Begins, strapping the thug on a searchlight that heats up to hundreds of degrees) actually change to represent what a populace looks for in a hero. Very telling that in this culture, the list of "virtues" includes torturing people.

~Sternhauser

Edited July 9, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

How are you defining vigilantism?

[Winchester]

The greatest danger in vigilantism is in its swiftness.

[MichaelFilo]

I don't think there can be room for it, unless ordained by God. The state fulfills that role as per Paul. In the absence of a state, I can only imagine it is the only recourse for justice, but who can be an arbitrater of it? We believe an impartial jury who has heard both sides is as fair as justice will get. I don't know who will be willing to be both jury and executioner of justice.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='09 July 2010 - 07:37 AM' timestamp='1278682642' post='2139834']
How are you defining vigilantism?
[/quote]
I think this is an important question in determining whether it can be moral.

As it's commonly understood, vigilantism is "justice" handled outside the normal channels of law giving and law enforcement, even though those channels exist. The usual justification is on the enforcement end, that law enforcement officials are either corrupt, ineffective, or don't have a strong enough presence in a given area. There is an element of assuming enforcement powers that have not been properly ceded to an individual or group.

There are instances where I believe it would be permissible for an individual or group to take the administration of justice into his or her own hands, such as in the defense of one's home or loved ones. However, I don't think those would qualify as "vigilante" justice, because the laws in most states provide for this sort of individual enforcement of the law. So I think that meeting an imminent threat with decisive action would not be vigilantism.

I agree with Winchester that the biggest problem with it is its swiftness, but vigilante justice also tends to be merciless. I think of lynchings in the last century as an example. My initial thought was that it could rarely be morally ok, but on reflection the instances in which I believe individual or group action would be permissible are actually typically sanctioned by the law and therefore actions wouldn't be vigilantism.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='09 July 2010 - 08:35 AM' timestamp='1278678903' post='2139816']
Strange how heroes, such as Batman, with his torturing (Batman Begins, dangling and threatening to kill the man unless he gave him information,) and then the newest movie, where he tortures the Joker,) and baking criminals (Batman Begins, strapping the thug on a searchlight that heats up to hundreds of degrees) actually change to represent what a populace looks for in a hero. Very telling that in this culture, the list of "virtues" includes torturing people.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I think in [i]The Dark Knight[/i], Batman is shown as walking the line between hero and anti-hero, rather than always being a paragon of morality. A reviewer noted how in [i]The Dark Knight[/i], whenever Batman "tortures" a bad guy to get information (such as the Joker and Maroni), it never leads to success on his part. After being beaten, the Joker gives Batman false information, and Rachael is killed while Harvey Dent is disfigured and ultimately corrupted.
In the interrogation scene (which incidentally Chris Nolan has said is his favorite), Batman is shown as a man losing control, while his rough methods prove frustratingly ineffective against the Joker, who takes masochistic delight in his beatings, and gleefully predicts that he will make Batman "break his one rule" (kill him).

That said, I honestly don't think it's necessarily wrong to rough up or frighten murderous criminals or terrorists to help save lives, much as that is an unpopular opinion on here. There's something wrong with a line of thought that places a higher premium on the comfort of murderers than on innocent lives. I think it's because much of our society essentially worships comfort anyway. A lot of people who are full of self-righteous horror at terrorists being caused discomfort or fear, see little horror in the murder of millions of the innocent unborn (or at best view the two as equivalent evils).

And incidentally, Stern, wouldn't [i]all[/i] justice be vigilante justice in your anarchist utopia?
(You might want to check out Frank Miller's classic 80s Batman work - it had some anarchist undertones.)

Edited July 9, 2010 by Socrates

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Terra Firma' date='09 July 2010 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1278699520' post='2139967']
I think this is an important question in determining whether it can be moral.

As it's commonly understood, vigilantism is "justice" handled outside the normal channels of law giving and law enforcement, even though those channels exist. The usual justification is on the enforcement end, that law enforcement officials are either corrupt, ineffective, or don't have a strong enough presence in a given area. There is an element of assuming enforcement powers that have not been properly ceded to an individual or group.

There are instances where I believe it would be permissible for an individual or group to take the administration of justice into his or her own hands, such as in the defense of one's home or loved ones. However, I don't think those would qualify as "vigilante" justice, because the laws in most states provide for this sort of individual enforcement of the law. So I think that meeting an imminent threat with decisive action would not be vigilantism.

I agree with Winchester that the biggest problem with it is its swiftness, but vigilante justice also tends to be merciless. I think of lynchings in the last century as an example. My initial thought was that it could rarely be morally ok, but on reflection the instances in which I believe individual or group action would be permissible are actually typically sanctioned by the law and therefore actions wouldn't be vigilantism.
[/quote]
See, that's what I was thinking about. Is defending yourself vigilante justice? It's outside of the law and has aspects of serving justice.

I just think that the term itself is loaded, which is why I haven't answered the poll.

[CatherineM]

What first came to my mind was Hurricane Charlie. There is a certain point before a storm hits that all responders are shut down, and stationed out of the storm surge areas. After that, no police, fire or ambulance will respond until the all clear is sounded. The first rule of rescue it to make no further victims. Anyway, during a lull in the worst part of the storm, kind of like the eye, except the eye was several miles south of us, everyone went out to walk their dogs. Someone's pit bull attacked someone's poodle, and the next thing we knew a guy was pointing a shotgun at the pit bull, and since the owner was shielding the dog, at the owner as well. It got handled the best we could, and no shots were fired, but normally, a bunch of guys tackling a man with a gun would be better handled by the police.

[Ed Normile]

I do believe the very definition of vigilante is one who takes the law into his own hands. Lets say I feel my neighbor has dumped trash on my property and I take the trash and throw it on his property, I have served up a form of vigilante justice. Though unless I have seen him do the dumping how can I be sure he was actually the one who dumped the trash, and if I did see it, would I not be better off to call him politely and say Sternhauser why did you dump your trash in my yard, pick it up before I call Nihil and he arrests you for littering. This of course being if Stern was my neighbor and Nihil was the law of the area.

Most cases of vigilantism are indeed carried out by groups of people who have gathered to right some perceived wrong, usually the crowd mentality is not the best for any situation, just look at how people react during any crisis, alone there are those who do the right thing, but when normalcy disintegrates raw emotions and greed usually leads the charge. This is why people who have lost everything in a natural disaster will often steal things like new TV's and stereo systems, even though their most urgent needs are food and water. Any group who has somehow gathered to punish a wrong do-er is led by emotion only, they forget the rights of due process and subject their targets to abuse as they see fit.

How would you like to be accused of a crime, say Slappo was seen in the area taking pictures of kids at a playground for an article he is writing for a catholic publication dealing with fun summer activities for children and one of these kids come up missing. Then someone thinks, I seen this young guy taking pics of these kids and I remember he is a catholic and you know about all them scandals in their church, maybe he was abused and as statistics prove abuse victims grow up to be abusers. This gets around and about 15 guys and 11 women from the area decide lets get Slappo and turn him over to the police, undoubtedly there will be one or two that says maybe we can get out of him where he has the child, so they beat him up a little, and Slappo says I did not do it, so they beat him a little more. Eventually they turn over the barely breathing battered body of slappo to the local authorities only to find out the kid was found several hours ago playing x-box with her friend and forgot to tell her parents. Poor Slappo will never take pictures again as the nerve damage to his body makes the shaking in his arms to much to hold a camera. This is a tragedy, save Slappo by realizing that vigilante justice is just immoral and wrong with no place in any modern society.

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='09 July 2010 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1278711760' post='2140121']
I do believe the very definition of vigilante is one who takes the law into his own hands. Lets say I feel my neighbor has dumped trash on my property and I take the trash and throw it on his property, I have served up a form of vigilante justice. Though unless I have seen him do the dumping how can I be sure he was actually the one who dumped the trash, and if I did see it, would I not be better off to call him politely and say Sternhauser why did you dump your trash in my yard, pick it up before I call Nihil and he arrests you for littering. This of course being if Stern was my neighbor and Nihil was the law of the area.

Most cases of vigilantism are indeed carried out by groups of people who have gathered to right some perceived wrong, usually the crowd mentality is not the best for any situation, just look at how people react during any crisis, alone there are those who do the right thing, but when normalcy disintegrates raw emotions and greed usually leads the charge. This is why people who have lost everything in a natural disaster will often steal things like new TV's and stereo systems, even though their most urgent needs are food and water. Any group who has somehow gathered to punish a wrong do-er is led by emotion only, they forget the rights of due process and subject their targets to abuse as they see fit.

How would you like to be accused of a crime, say Slappo was seen in the area taking pictures of kids at a playground for an article he is writing for a catholic publication dealing with fun summer activities for children and one of these kids come up missing. Then someone thinks, I seen this young guy taking pics of these kids and I remember he is a catholic and you know about all them scandals in their church, maybe he was abused and as statistics prove abuse victims grow up to be abusers. This gets around and about 15 guys and 11 women from the area decide lets get Slappo and turn him over to the police, undoubtedly there will be one or two that says maybe we can get out of him where he has the child, so they beat him up a little, and Slappo says I did not do it, so they beat him a little more. Eventually they turn over the barely breathing battered body of slappo to the local authorities only to find out the kid was found several hours ago playing x-box with her friend and forgot to tell her parents. Poor Slappo will never take pictures again as the nerve damage to his body makes the shaking in his arms to much to hold a camera. This is a tragedy, save Slappo by realizing that vigilante justice is just immoral and wrong with no place in any modern society.

ed
[/quote]
Poor Slappo. Poor guy never saw it coming.


All I know is that I'm smart enough not to try to arrest Sternhauser.

[Ed Normile]

Oh and another thing, one defending ones self is in no way vigilante justice. When you are defending your self you are not the aggressor, you are the defender, you are taking the steps neccessary to protect yourslef, not judging a wrong and deciding what needs to be done and then pursuing an action towards an alledged wrong do-er.

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='09 July 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1278712267' post='2140130']
Oh and another thing, one defending ones self is in no way vigilante justice. When you are defending your self you are not the aggressor, you are the defender, you are taking the steps neccessary to protect yourslef, not judging a wrong and deciding what needs to be done and then pursuing an action towards an alledged wrong do-er.

ed
[/quote]
All I wanted to get at is that the term vigilante justice is poorly defined. I went so far as to call it a loaded term. I think it's too general, and carries too many negative connotations, to be of any use in this poll.

[Sojourner]

See, I would argue that self-defense and removing your neighbor's trash from your yard and putting it in his are not vigilante justice, but rather are within the scope of the law -- protecting self, property, and others from imminent harm or danger. Use of deadly force is typically allowed in castle doctrine laws, and I'm pretty sure that case law supports using less-than-deadly force to prevent unjustified shooting of another person or their animal. I wouldn't say that's vigilante.

It's more, in my opinion, than simply taking the law into your own hands. It's taking power that's not ceded to you into your own hands. We have the right to protect self, property, and others from imminent threat (with varying degrees of force permissible).

The line is fuzzy, though, I'll admit, when it comes to defining "imminent threat."