Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Not sure where this goes, but it's a legal issue so I figured social issues was pretty close.

    I often hear people speak out against citizens "taking the law into their own hands" and describe vigilante's as outlaws. I disagree.

    Governments, and government agencies like the police, were formed BY the people to carry out the laws of the people.. for the purpose of protecting those same people. Well, if the government fails to adequetely protect the people in accordance with their laws.. does not the responsibility (and the right!) fall back to the people who orginally created those laws?

    More simply: If I hire you to protect me, and you fail to do so, dont I still maintain the right to protect myself? if I hire you to enforce a law, and you fail to enforce it, dont I still have the right to have that law enforced?

    When a government is unable or unwilling to execute the laws of its citizens, I assert that the responsibility reverts back to the citizens.

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    The justice system should deliver harsher penalties to convicted criminals, but it doesn't. As much as I would sometimes like to go and beat the crap out of a rapist who has been set free after only a year or two in prison, I don't, and nor do I expect anyone else to. It simply isn't right.
    The Government - and the justice system - have an obligation to it's people to protect them, and all too often, we are not recieving that protection. Because of this, people turn vigilante. Just recently a rapist was released from prison, and dozens of people turned up at his home (the media had revealed his whereabouts) and threw rocks through his windows and threatened him with physical harm. These people had to be restrained by police to prevent them from killing the guy. In the end, the rapist wa taken back to prison because it was the only place where he would be safe. His sentence had been completed, yet he was forced to remain in prison because a bunch of people thought they had the right to murder him.

    Now, what I mean by this is that when a person is sentenced to prison, we expect them to remain there until they have completed their sentence, right? We don't expect them to be released a year or two early. This is an example of the Government failing to protect it's citizens because it doesn't follow through with the laws it has made.

    One problem when people turn vigilante is the cost. It costs money for police to protect an offender against the public. These police could be elsewhere, catching the real criminals, but they are forced to restrain an angry mob of people who can't control their temper. The cost to protect the offender from the public often runs into the tens of thousands, paid for by the taxpayer.

    Of course we expect the Government to protect us, we deserve it, after all, and it is the duty of the Government to ensure that all citizens of it's country and safe and protected. However, we have no right to turn vigilante. If you have a problem with the Government or justice system, write to the President or Prime Minister. Write to the courts, organise a protest, etc. Don't think you have the right to bash someones brains out just because you don't feel protected. You are no better than the offender themselves.


    If I hire you to protect me, and you fail to do so, dont I still maintain the right to protect myself? if I hire you to enforce a law, and you fail to enforce it, dont I still have the right to have that law enforced?
    One question: Who, or what, am I protecting myself against? I have the right to self defence, but only when a person threatens me with physical harm. I do not have the right to defend myself against someone I think may cause harm to me. There is a big difference.
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by 13Stripes View Post
    Not sure where this goes, but it's a legal issue so I figured social issues was pretty close.

    I often hear people speak out against citizens "taking the law into their own hands" and describe vigilante's as outlaws. I disagree.

    Governments, and government agencies like the police, were formed BY the people to carry out the laws of the people.. for the purpose of protecting those same people. Well, if the government fails to adequetely protect the people in accordance with their laws.. does not the responsibility (and the right!) fall back to the people who orginally created those laws?

    More simply: If I hire you to protect me, and you fail to do so, dont I still maintain the right to protect myself? if I hire you to enforce a law, and you fail to enforce it, dont I still have the right to have that law enforced?

    When a government is unable or unwilling to execute the laws of its citizens, I assert that the responsibility reverts back to the citizens.
    Wrong! I'm against vigilante justice, and if a government fails to protect it's people, it should be set up with another, better government, not reduced to mob rule.

    The main problem with vigilante justice is the lack of restrictioins. Police, at least in modern, democratic societies, have to abide by a set of laws made so that they don't abuse their power; they have to get a court order to search someone's home and they have to make people aware of their rights and let them know why they're being arrested (these are just a few of the restriction that they are put under). A vigilante, on the other hand, has nothing stopping him or her from simply kicking down the door to someone's house and beating the Hell out of someone with no probable cause, no warrent, no reason, and no restrictions. Granted, their are certainly bad police officers who don't abide by these rules, and unfortunately, governments don't always punish them to the extent that they should be punished. However, having a written code of law and behavior as to what you're allowed to do as a police officer, and at least having the possibility of suffering some consequences can at least act as something of a deterent to police becoming worse than the criminals they're trying to punish.

    The second problem is their lack of training. Do vigilantes really know how to handle a potentially violent, criminal situation? Do they know how to handle, for example, a hostage situation, or, for that matter, simply how to correctly interpret a situation? Here's the perfect example. A vigilante is walking down the street, and he sees a middle aged man trying to pull a young girl into a car. The young girl is screaming "No, no, no, let me go". He takes out his gun and pulls the trigger, just before hearing the words "No, daddy, I don't want to go to the dentist!," come from the little girl's mouth. This particular vigilante thought that what he was seeing was a kidnapping, but in reality, it was just a father trying to get his scared daughter to go to the dentist. Having an untrained citizen dealing with complex, criminal situations is no smarter than having your average layman perform surgery. Individuals need to be correctly trained in the complexities of criminal behavior, and how to correctly interpret situations when they see them before they start enforcing what they believe to be justice.

    The fact of the matter is, vigilante justice might work in your average Sylvester Stallone movie, but in the real world, you're doing nothing besides releasing a monster into the streets.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,785
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    You're right to self-defense is absolute.

    With that being said, we cannot confuse self-defense with vigilante justice. When you resort to vigilante justice, you are not only usurping the duties of law enforcement, but that of judge and jury also. This is completely against the rule of law.

    In every state of the union you are allowed to use appropriate force to defend your person and in most cases your property, but once the immediate threat is no longer present you are not allowed carry out your own personal version of justice.

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin
    Posts
    385
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    The founding fathers knew all about vigilante justice. In fact, some were scared silly by the mobs that they saw form during and after the revolution to attack Tories. Alexander Hamilton once had to save a loyalist friend of his from being tarred and feathered, in the friend's own home, by an angry mob.

    It's written right into the Bill of Rights (5th Amendment): "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This applies just as much to citizen vigilantes as it does to the government and courts.

    The founding fathers knew that, while vigilante justice might sometimes yield the most desirous results for the whole, the risk was far too high and the morals far too sketchy to actually allow it. It's better to let ten guilty men walk free than to allow one innocent man to be killed.

    As my final point: the government retains the only right to coercive force. If you give the right to coerce to citizens, then respect for the government runs the risk of becoming only a secondary concern. From there, it is only a matter of time before the government becomes inconsequential and eventually ineffective.
    So...

    I finaggled my way into being able to do a Philosophy minor. I blame you, ODN.


  6. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,675
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by 13Stripes View Post
    Governments, and government agencies like the police, were formed BY the people to carry out the laws of the people.. for the purpose of protecting those same people. Well, if the government fails to adequetely protect the people in accordance with their laws.. does not the responsibility (and the right!) fall back to the people who orginally created those laws?
    Then the people should form a different body to protect them that will do a better job.

    But a vigilante is not working on the behalf of the people. The vigilante is not elected by the people to do what he does.

    Quote Originally Posted by 13Stripes View Post
    More simply: If I hire you to protect me, and you fail to do so, dont I still maintain the right to protect myself?
    of course. You shooting a man who's trying to kill you is not vigilanteism - it's self-defense.

    And for the record, the government assumes no responsibility to protect you. The police are there to catch the people who break the law only - not to prevent the crime before it happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by 13Stripes View Post
    if I hire you to enforce a law, and you fail to enforce it, dont I still have the right to have that law enforced?
    But how do you know if the law was not enforced properly? If a defendant is found not guilty, isn't it possible that he really didn't commit the crime and therefore the law was enforced?


    Quote Originally Posted by 13Stripes View Post
    When a government is unable or unwilling to execute the laws of its citizens, I assert that the responsibility reverts back to the citizens.
    Who then can form a different body that acts on their behalf to more effectively enforce the law. But Joe Smith, who is not elected or appointed by his fellow citizens, doing whatever he thinks is the right thing to ensure justice is not the answer. If the citizens give Joe Smith a badge and make him Sheriff by official decree, then his actions are on behalf of the people.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    176
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by 13Stripes View Post
    Not sure where this goes, but it's a legal issue so I figured social issues was pretty close.

    I often hear people speak out against citizens "taking the law into their own hands" and describe vigilante's as outlaws. I disagree.

    Governments, and government agencies like the police, were formed BY the people to carry out the laws of the people.. for the purpose of protecting those same people. Well, if the government fails to adequetely protect the people in accordance with their laws.. does not the responsibility (and the right!) fall back to the people who orginally created those laws?

    More simply: If I hire you to protect me, and you fail to do so, dont I still maintain the right to protect myself? if I hire you to enforce a law, and you fail to enforce it, dont I still have the right to have that law enforced?

    When a government is unable or unwilling to execute the laws of its citizens, I assert that the responsibility reverts back to the citizens.
    Unless you agree with the process by which this occurred...

    http://englishclassnet.files.wordpre...1/lynching.jpg

    Care to change your mind?

    Sure you have the right to defend yourself, but you have to be able to justify your defense.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Being a vigilante isn't nessesarily evil, you may well be serving an sense of jutice or morality by your actions.

    But a society can't condone vigilantes because they don't have accountability, and accountability is key in justice. You need checks and balances and a Vigilante doesn't have any. Even the very well intentioned are going to make errors or let their emotions get the better of thier reason.

    The rule of law is needed not because it is perfect, but that it is accountable (at least its supposed to be).

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja Turunen View Post
    Just recently a rapist was released from prison, and dozens of people turned up at his home (the media had revealed his whereabouts) and threw rocks through his windows and threatened him with physical harm. These people had to be restrained by police to prevent them from killing the guy. In the end, the rapist wa taken back to prison because it was the only place where he would be safe. His sentence had been completed, yet he was forced to remain in prison because a bunch of people thought they had the right to murder him.
    I find that more than a little difficult to believe, is there any source for this story?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripes
    Governments, and government agencies like the police, were formed BY the people to carry out the laws of the people.. for the purpose of protecting those same people. Well, if the government fails to adequetely protect the people in accordance with their laws.. does not the responsibility (and the right!) fall back to the people who orginally created those laws?
    Yes and no. WHen the government fails to uphold its end of the social contract, as Locke said, it is the right and duty of every citizen to upheave that government and build a new one in its place that will uphold the administrative end of the social contract. Having said that, we basically have a "peaceful revolution" every 2-4 years here in the states because through voting we're overturning the standing government and replacing it with essentially a new one (though politicians and people have somehow mangled this concept).
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripes
    More simply: If I hire you to protect me, and you fail to do so, dont I still maintain the right to protect myself? if I hire you to enforce a law, and you fail to enforce it, dont I still have the right to have that law enforced?
    Yes, you have that right to have the law enforced. But the right to see a law enforced isn't a right to enforce the law yourself. If you hire me and I fail to protect you, then your right to see the law enforced essentially means firing me and hiring someone else to protect you. The difference being, that by hiring me in the first place you're admitting (either vocally or silently) that you yourself are incapable and unqualified to enforce the law. If you were qualified, you wouldn't have hired me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripes
    When a government is unable or unwilling to execute the laws of its citizens, I assert that the responsibility reverts back to the citizens.
    The responsibility of the citizens is to ensure that there's a body elected to protect/serve them and see to it that everyone lives freely and safely (in that order, freedom before safety).

    This couldn't be more evident than in Deadwood when Bullock arrived (in real life, not the series). Before he showed up, Deadwood had no police force. The only justice was lynchmob justice. When Bullock arrived, he fought off a lynchmob to protect a man they were about to hang (an innocent man, IIRC). Afterwards, he became the town's sheriff, and things got a LOT more liveable there. Same with Tombstone. We place the law in the hands of others because we recognise our own inadequacy to see such laws dutifully and sufficiently enforced.

    And while we may cry foul over convicts not recieving harsher penalties, or not immediately going to the chair, we'd do well to remember that our own fates hang by similar minded threads (IE, people who would be just as pleased to see you get a harsher penalty or go straight to the chair if the tables were turned).
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I find that more than a little difficult to believe, is there any source for this story?
    I'm trying to find one.

    Okay, no recent newspaper articals - he has been back in prison for about a month or two now - but his name is Dennis Ferguson. He is a repeat sex offender. He has charges of sexual abuse thrown out because a judge decided he couldn't get a fair trial. He was moved to a public housing unit, and the media revealed his whereabouts. He was forced to move after vigilants showed up outside the propety. He was moved about two more times, and each time the media revealed his whereabouts. There are no laws here to prevent the media from doing this. The cost to taxpayers to keep him safe ran into the tens of thousands. Because there was no way to prevent the media revealing his whereabouts, he was taken back to prison where he could be protected.

    Dennis Ferguson

    It's only a Wiki artical, but it's the only thing I could find. The rest I remember off the top of my head. Not sure if other countries ban the media from revealing the whereabouts of a sex offender. They should.

    Link

    Nice that the papers don't print details of violence yet the media is always happy to show it on TV.
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja Turunen View Post

    It's only a Wiki artical, but it's the only thing I could find. The rest I remember off the top of my head. Not sure if other countries ban the media from revealing the whereabouts of a sex offender. They should.
    Eh? So we are to do away with a large chunk of the first amendment just because of a few rapists and child molesters? That is unconscionable (sp).

    The media is, and must remain, free. If someone committed X crime, then there's NO reason not to report it. And, if people decide that their government has failed them by letting that person out into the public, then they have the god-given right to remedy the situation. One way or another.

    If this story is true, I have renewed faith in people. Dont let the government force a rapist back onto your streets just because they want to push some elitist agenda (cmon, you know it, liberals love to set rapists free after minimal sentences via their "rehab over punishment" mentality.. see Vermont!).

    This is a great example of what I was talking about in the OP: dont let unelected officials (e.g. judges) force criminals back into your neighborhoods when 99 percent of the people there dont want a rapist next door. The PEOPLE have the power, not a handful of judges.

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja Turunen View Post
    It's only a Wiki artical, but it's the only thing I could find. The rest I remember off the top of my head. Not sure if other countries ban the media from revealing the whereabouts of a sex offender. They should.
    It doesn't say anything about him being moved back to prison in either link. Only that he's living on some marginally isolated property with some unnamed Christian group and that there's nowhere else for him to go.

    And here in the states we have Megan's Law (or something) that requires sex offenders to register their address so everyone will know who they are/where they live. It may seem unfair, but given the recidivism rates of sex offenders (they're the highest rating repeat offenders) it makes sense as a safeguard to go, "Well he's released, but we're letting everyone know where he lives and what he did". Hell, in most prisons people like that are SOS (Stab on Sight).

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripes
    And, if people decide that their government has failed them by letting that person out into the public, then they have the god-given right to remedy the situation. One way or another.
    If the government fails to solve the problem, you install a new government that will solve the problem. The Congress is supposed to represent the legislative wants and needs of the people. If the laws are too lax, then lobby for a change and have them amended. But up and deciding the government failed isn't a good enough reason. That's how you end up with McVeighs and Unibombers.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cape Town South Africa
    Posts
    402
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    When it comes to people taking the law into their own hands it is due to many factors. One is that the police aren't able to handle the problem siwftly enough, the other might be that people do not want the police to handle the situation - that they would rather handle it themselves. I see you talking about rapists and think I know exactly how vigilante justice would hadle that. They would beat the person and possibly mutilate them in some manner. Now in all cases of vigilante justice, is that justice?

    What is justice? Justice is when something just occurs, some righting of wrongs. Is having a lawyer to try to explain your side of the argument just? Yes it is, but it can also be decieving, as lawyers often do try to decieve people with 'tricks' they have learned, so maybe this justice isn't just. Now how just do you think a beating without proper representation is? When someone says that someone else did them wrong, what are the proceedings? Back in the millenia people used to just react to others with what they thought was justice, then people became more formal and brought the perp before the tribal leader, and today you bring the perp before the judiciary to see how it turns out. Is this vigilante justice the best option? I mean isn't it a step back? Don't things improve for the sake of the people by the people with a fair trial? Is it right to just haul people up and beat them badly because of what has been heard? Isn't that riddled with 'corruption' - and by corruption, I mean favouritism? The less official a hearing is the more likely it is to be heard incorrectly or with bias. If it is a community of the perp people will remeber them for what else they did, and that character witness way of doing things is outdated too. If your only memory of someone is that they were swearing in the street or kicking a small dog you would be biased, and people should never be biased in a judicial hearing because that is where things stop being objective and start becoming subjective.

    If vigilante justice was the only justice there would be very little justice indeed. When there are laws set up to judge people by, voted for by the people, they are very seldomn followed by vigilanties who administer some sort of half baked plans to try the person. Vigilante justice depends on rumours, and are followed according to the rumours the mob hears, not the evidence and standards to which can ascribe a person to bear the punishment or not. Vigilante justice may be the only justice at any given point, but it is unreliable, right? Some people hear there is a drug dealer in the community, they seek to rid the community of said drug dealer, they march to the house and examine it, and if finding drugs there, they dispense 'justice'.

    Vigilante justice often uses interrogation to get the truth, and isn't interrogation against the law in most countries? What if the interrogator doesn't know what they are doing? What if they just want a scape goat for their community? WIthout trained ploice to inspect the scene, assumptions are drawn, things like that they don't like the look of one of the suspects so they detain them, really personal things that go unnoticed in modern courts.

    Vigilante justice was the only justice for a while, and it has been abandoned officially for more sound methods, but some people still take it upon themselves to dispense it. But, seeing as how it was the only justice, and it is justice, it is right, however outdated it might be.
    !! Servant of Gaia !!

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    It doesn't say anything about him being moved back to prison in either link. Only that he's living on some marginally isolated property with some unnamed Christian group and that there's nowhere else for him to go.
    Yeah, I know it didn't say everything. It was an earlier artical. I heard about him going back to prison on the news, so it may not have made the paper. They called it 'protective custody'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    And here in the states we have Megan's Law (or something) that requires sex offenders to register their address so everyone will know who they are/where they live. It may seem unfair, but given the recidivism rates of sex offenders (they're the highest rating repeat offenders) it makes sense as a safeguard to go, "Well he's released, but we're letting everyone know where he lives and what he did". Hell, in most prisons people like that are SOS (Stab on Sight).
    I like that law - you don't seem to have had any trouble with vigilante attacks, which is what people over here are concerned about if such a law were put in place. I worry that people would use this system as an excuse. It'd be easier for them to find out where a sex offender lives. It could do more harm than good, then again, if the system is doing well in the US, there is no reason why it wouldn't work over here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    If the government fails to solve the problem, you install a new government that will solve the problem.
    Howard never did anything in his 12 years, and our new Prime Minister isn't doing anything, eithor. The citizens are the ones protesting, sending letters to the courts and local members of parliment. The polititians just seem to worry more about raising taxes than fixing the justice system.
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja Turunen View Post
    Howard never did anything in his 12 years, and our new Prime Minister isn't doing anything, eithor. The citizens are the ones protesting, sending letters to the courts and local members of parliment. The polititians just seem to worry more about raising taxes than fixing the justice system.
    Which is why you lobby again, and again and again if necessary, for a new government, for accountability, etc.

    The Law isn't just in place to protect us from the boogeyman. It's there to help protect us from ourselves as well.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Which is why you lobby again, and again and again if necessary, for a new government, for accountability, etc.

    The Law isn't just in place to protect us from the boogeyman. It's there to help protect us from ourselves as well.
    Yes but what if nothing ever changes? or if it does but takes 30 years? Are we to sit quietly and wait, all the while our rights may be trampled on? Not acceptable.

    Under your logic, jew's in Nazi germany should have waited patiently for regime change instead of trying to band together and fight off their persecutors.

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by 13Stripes View Post
    Yes but what if nothing ever changes? or if it does but takes 30 years? Are we to sit quietly and wait, all the while our rights may be trampled on? Not acceptable.
    It changes. Mayors, governors, senators, representatives, presidents, all get changed around every couple years. All it takes is a well informed, passionate populace to inact that change effectively by electing people who share their goals. Take the current presidential election. No one HAS to choose between McCain or Obama. You can write in your own choice for president (I believe all ballots come with a blank spot for such an occasion).

    Name one example that justifies a violent overthrow of our standing government. And explain how such an example cannot be lawfully and peacebly corrected.
    Quote Originally Posted by 13Stripes View Post
    Under your logic, jew's in Nazi germany should have waited patiently for regime change instead of trying to band together and fight off their persecutors.
    Nazi Germany was the exception, not the rule. And it's a strawman to argue that I'm saying we should just "patiently wait for regime change". I've repeatedly said that people should lobby for change.

    Secondly, Nazi Germany is an extreme example outside the original scope of the thread.

    Take your own post earlier:

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripes
    More simply: If I hire you to protect me, and you fail to do so, dont I still maintain the right to protect myself? if I hire you to enforce a law, and you fail to enforce it, dont I still have the right to have that law enforced?

    When a government is unable or unwilling to execute the laws of its citizens, I assert that the responsibility reverts back to the citizens.
    The discussion is about the government failing to protect/enforce the laws its charged with, not about governments making war with its people.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by 13Stripes View Post
    When a government is unable or unwilling to execute the laws of its citizens, I assert that the responsibility reverts back to the citizens.
    Well that is where "Citizen's power of arrest" comes in.

    In the US anyone who witnesses a crime has the authority to use reasonable means to prevent the escape of the perpetraitor of said crime. I have two times done this myself and both times wondered at my stupidity afterwards as both were wanted for very violent crimes.

    That is not vigilanteism though.

    Vigilanteism is catching the perp and then finding a tall tree and a short rope. Street Justice. There was a case like this in Chicago a few years back. Drunk driver hits and kills a little girl. The people on the street drag the gu from the car and beat him to death. Lots of people there but no one saw nothing. No arrests were made.

    So what exactly are you asking here?


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by cds69 View Post

    In every state of the union you are allowed to use appropriate force to defend your person and in most cases your property, but once the immediate threat is no longer present you are not allowed carry out your own personal version of justice.
    I guess that depend on what you mean by "allow."

    Few prosecutors would want to prosecute the father of a little girl who was brutally raped and murdered -- for shooting and killing her killer after he was convicted. Such cases often fall under the discretion of the prosecutor and many local prsoecutors will not want to try a case where they are convinced they will not get a conviction on, or they are bombarded with messages of sympathy for the "perpetraitor". Many times such cases are pleaded down to a slap on the wrist.

    If a prosecutor asks the questions "What would I do if I were in that position?" And the answer is "probably the same thing." Then it is a loser case.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    The Law isn't just in place to protect us from the boogeyman. It's there to help protect us from ourselves as well.
    In the US Police have no legal obligation to protect anyone from anything. Legally they are only obligated to investigate crime.
    Last edited by Spartacus; August 18th, 2008 at 12:41 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    176
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Has anyone heard of that Texas guy who shot and killed men who had robbed his neighbors vacated house? I think he got away with it, but that might be a good real world example to discuss on this thread.

    I think he used excessive force... He was actually on the phone with a 911 dispatcher who told him to stay put and not go outside with his shotgun. The guy obviously didn't listen, went outside, shouted out a warning, and (like 2 seconds later) shot and killed both suspects. What should we think about this vigilante?


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    In this case, he declared himself judge, jury, and executioner. He had no idea if perhaps his neighbor had asked these guys to come in and move some stuff or anything, and if this had been the case, he certainly wouldn't have been innocent in any way. I suppose he just got lucky.

    Vigilante justice is more than just asserting your right to defend yourself, or even going after known offenders (like Dog the Bounty Hunter); it's also passing judgment and carrying out that judgment...
    Last edited by scottyT; August 18th, 2008 at 12:53 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Vigilante Justice: Right or Wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by 13Stripes View Post
    Governments, and government agencies like the police, were formed BY the people to carry out the laws of the people.. for the purpose of protecting those same people. Well, if the government fails to adequetely protect the people in accordance with their laws.. does not the responsibility (and the right!) fall back to the people who orginally created those laws?
    The people, as a collective. Not the people, as individuals.

    More simply: If I hire you to protect me, and you fail to do so, dont I still maintain the right to protect myself? if I hire you to enforce a law, and you fail to enforce it, dont I still have the right to have that law enforced?
    The government is not hired by individuals to enforce laws; it is a contract among individuals to create a society. The analogy does not hold.
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Same Sex Marriage Ban Lifted in CA
    By Booger in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: May 29th, 2008, 11:15 AM
  2. Is it ever right to lie?
    By starcreator in forum General Debate
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: April 17th, 2007, 08:19 AM
  3. Justice is Subjective
    By Kaizen in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 5th, 2007, 11:29 AM
  4. Perceptions and Beliefs are NEVER wrong!
    By Apokalupsis in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 254
    Last Post: May 6th, 2006, 09:59 PM
  5. Is spanking unethical?
    By starcreator in forum General Debate
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: April 10th, 2006, 06:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •