Vigilantism

I recently saw the movie The Brave One in which Jody Foster plays the role of a violent crime victim and turns vigilante. Vigilante movies have been around for a long time and they seem to all do well at the box office so Hollywood keeps making them. I like them as well and it makes me ask why? Do you like them? Perhaps there are millions of people who would like to see some of the worst criminal element in society dealt with this way? I imagine many of the victims of such crimes do. Perhaps millions are fed up with seeing violent criminals let go due to some breach of "technicality" in the law that allows some high priced lawyer to get them off? What are your feelings? If you were on the jury of someone like Ms Foster played in this movie would you convict them or set them free?  If the same thing happened to you , or someone you love, and the law set the person free what would you do?

I think that "violence begets violence" and as far as this saying is from a solution to crime, we should never forget it. My country New Zealand has relitivly little violent crime and I think this is because a) we have strict gun laws and b) our leaders are benevolent and attack social problems at their roots instead of turning criminals into a profitable business like the US seems to.

 

I think that the law is an important process and vigilantes who ignore it are no better than the crims. If everyone took the law into their own hands there would be chaos.

 

Hollywood is another medium that I think ignores reality and whats best for society in favour of what is  most profitable.

Perhaps you agree with Jodie Foster's (character's) assessment of who deserved to die, that's not to say you would agree with mr Smith's assessment of who should die (he dislikes traffic cops, believing them to be unconstitutional and deserving of death).  The judicial system imposes the collective punishment of society, there are sound reasons for making that punishment collective rather than individual.

If you thought Miss Foster had been proven guilty you would be breaking your oath as a juror to find her innocent.  'He was a bad guy' isn't a legal defense for murder.  Leniency comes in with sentencing if the judge buys the mitigating factors.

Hmmmm....comparing someone who just "doesnt like" to a victim of a brutal/violent crime is quite a stretch eh? 

Reb wrote: Hmmmm....comparing someone who just "doesnt like" to a victim of a brutal/violent crime is quite a stretch eh? 

---

I'm comparing a vigilante to a vigilante.  You're presumably okaying one but not the other based on your personal opinion on whether their vigilantism was justified, not in law, but in terms of personal morality?  Juries cannot operate like that, there would be no consistency.

I believe when personally faced with such a horrible crime any of us might change our positions on many things. I am talking about victims of horrible crimes, you are talking about something entirely different. It would be nice if people actually answered the questions asked though instead of getting sidetracked with why/why not  or right/wrong.

Reb wrote: I believe when personally faced with such a horrible crime any of us might change our positions on many things. I am talking about victims of horrible crimes, you are talking about something entirely different. It would be nice if people actually answered the questions asked though instead of getting sidetracked with why/why not  or right/wrong.

---

We're both talking about vigilantism, private citizens taking the law into their own hands.  You asked a why/why not right/wrong question.  My point is people will disagree on which crimes warrant which punishment, particularly an extra-judicial death sentence.  Which is in part why we need the judicial system vigilantes bypass.  Personally I would not want some random private citizen who feels themselves to have been wronged, whether I personally agree with them or not, to identify the criminal, establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt all by themselves and then execute their victim.

I think there wouldnt be any problem IF the judicial system actually worked. The problem is that it doesnt. There are many convicted murderers walking the streets today. In the US the average time served for murder is 7 to 8 years. People convicted of drug crimes often do more than that. Imagine a scenario where someone murders your children, or parents, and you are an eye witness to the crime. They get convicted and 7 years latr are out walking the streets. Is this "justice" ? One of the things I am driving at is that I believe there are millions of people who feel the "justice" system is incompetent and thus such movies almost always do good at the box office. The motto of law enforcement is to "protect and serve" . Whom do they protect and serve?

They protect and serve the citizens.  We agree that the system is imperfect, I just doubt that allowing people to act as judge, jury and executioner is going to fix it. 

Millions of people in agreement can affect change through the political system if tougher sentences what they are after.  Provided they are also willing to pay extra taxation for the extra prisons of course.

I think it is overcoming that feeling of helplessness, taking action instead of sitting around waiting for someone else to take care of it. In addition to being able to cut through the rules.

 

One might be interested to know that in the frontiers of America in the 1800's there was a group of vigilantes filling in for the non-existent police force, but they got so out of control that a second vigilante group formed and there was a lot of fighting (and killing) between the two.

ivandh wrote:

I think it is overcoming that feeling of helplessness, taking action instead of sitting around waiting for someone else to take care of it. In addition to being able to cut through the rules.

 

One might be interested to know that in the frontiers of America in the 1800's there was a group of vigilantes filling in for the non-existent police force, but they got so out of control that a second vigilante group formed and there was a lot of fighting (and killing) between the two.

---

I think your post illustrates the fact that violence perpetuates violence. Instead of combative head on tactics, one side needs to back down to end the cycle.

 

But as to the question of how I might feel if this scenario occurred to me? Well I think it would take a phenomenally forgiving individual to forgive a fatal act of violence against a loved one. Personally I wouldn't be so tolerent - but I know this is because i would lose control of my emotions in these circumstances. But I think that ideally we should be in control of our emotions to the extent that even an event of such magnitude would not be enough to cause one to lose their equilibrium. I am a long way from achieveing this amount of discipline. I believe this level of centredness is  mastery and is something that I may never possess.

Reb wrote: I think there wouldnt be any problem IF the judicial system actually worked. The problem is that it doesnt.

---

Right! This is the key point, which should be easy for any thinking person to see.

I think that I, and many others, latch on to a vigilante character because we are sick of these heinous criminals 'getting away with murder' quite literally, because of bureaucratic BS. The problem is that we have to deal with crimes in this way, because no one (besides maybe God) has the right to decide what justice is by themselves. We all romanticize vigilantes but they are just people that could very easily make an error in judgement. We need to somehow, as a society, come up with an idea of justice collaboratively, which is what many countries try to do. Legislation may go terribly wrong sometimes, but it is the closest thing to a collaborative decision that society can possibly make. So when it comes down to it, all we can do is make laws...and watch vigilante movies.

A professor of Greek history said that their plays were often an outlet for actions and ideas that normally would have to be supressed. Vigilante movies are an outlet for us, overriding a slow and bureaucratic system and taking justice into one's own hands.

 

I remember a sci-fi novel where a colony for the most intelligent people was created on another planet, where there was no government at all, and private citizens would become international spies on a whim. If we all had that that sort of intellect and level-headedness, vigilantism (but not necessarily violent- I agree with Quix that violence begets violence) would be an acceptable practice. But we need a system to regulate our own stupidity.

For those opposed to vigilante justice I ask where do you draw a line? Lets say you see someone attacked, should you, or I, intervene?  Is this a form of vigilante justice too ?

Reb wrote: For those opposed to vigilante justice I ask where do you draw a line? Lets say you see someone attacked, should you, or I, intervene?  Is this a form of vigilante justice too ?

---

The line is defined by law.  Intervening is fine with reasonable force.

There is a show called Dexter, in which the main character is a serial killer working as a forensics expert. He "only " kills "bad people" , those who always seem to escape justice. Does anyone else see/like this show?

I've been watching it online, it's very entertaining.

I actually like the show, not sure thats a good thing though? 

HotFlow wrote: I agree the judicial system in the western world is just a complete failure, speaking from my experiences in my home country, the UK.  The police seem shackled especially when it comes to dealing with kiddie yobo gangs and such; we like to blame the police but I can see why the police can’t be arsed.   Human rights laws handed down by the Eurocrats are rarely applied as they were intended... to safeguard humans right.  Instead lawyers just see them as an exploit to get criminals off the hook.  Also the judges in the UK!  They seem a bunch of waste of space private-school rich-boys, dinosaurs who don't have clue about the world around them. With the UK the way it is with all the bad influences on kids I'm glad I'm bringing up my daughter abroad.  It’s nice being able to tell the kids out your front to stop making noise and not getting your windows done in later that evening, and not only do they stop they apologise for making the noise in the first place!  Bliss!

---

Stop Press! This week, senior police officer voiced serious concerns regarding the Government's new point scoring system for solving crimes.  Basically, giving someone an official warning for stealing a bottle of milk counts as much as convicting a rapist.  Sounds like I made it up, but that IS the state of British justice system today.  The lunatics HAVE taken over the asylum!