Vigilantism

Breaking the law in order to fulfill the law seems like such an oxymoron. Since we shouldn't take the law into our own hands(outside the system),is there a way to work inside the(system) law to achieve justice?  I would venture to guess the first step is voting for those with a strong policy of law enforcement,justice,human rights, etc. The problem with that is that judges are not elected in the states, but appointed. Appointed by whom?-those in authority who we either voted for or didn't vote against. Back to the main question= why do vigilante movies do well in the box office. Because we like to see justice done, the evil punished, wrongs righted. In star wars, who did you cheer for-darth vader and the evil empire, or luke and the rebel alliance? i don't know about you, but i cheered myself raw for luke, han solo, chewbacca, and princess leiea. Maybe they were vigilantes?

Good grief, is it any wonder that there is so little respect for the "law" ? It seems to me that the suspects have more protections these days than do their  victims.

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 ?

---

 Do you mean intervene at the scene? If so, this has nothing to do with justice. Justice, the way I see it, is deciding what person/people should be convicted on what charges. If you simply intervene to stop the person, you are just being a responsible citizen. You are not convicting them of anything, but merely insuring that they will be tried. This should not be construed as vigilante justice in my opinion.

About 10 years ago... or so... a man was making an early morning deposit from his company. This was before the bank was open. Two men grabbed him, removed him from his van, beat the tar out of him and stole the money and took off on foot. The man, barely able to see straight, got in his van and went after them.

His "intent" was to get his money, but in his reduced capacity he ended up running one of the robbers over, killing him instantly.

Unless I am mistaken, the man who was robbed was sentenced to serve a prison term for at least 10 years, while the robber who lived got a slap on the hand.

I know there are a million and one cases like this that make us scratch our heads... and there are always a million and one things to take into account when weighing these cases...

I can only say I'm glad I'm not the one that has to sort it out. Though... sometimes I wonder if the people sorting it all out are the people who I would like sorting it all out.

I am reminded of a line in one of my favorite movies: "when the law breaks the law, there is no law, only the struggle to survive. 

I've thought this over today and, as usual, found no solutions but plenty of observations. 

 

It seems to me that the "law" and individuals have different intents in their responses to violent crimes. The law seeks Justice. Older justice might have been along the line of "an eye for an eye..." which later seems to have evolved into less barbaric compensating punishments such as jail time. People, though, don't usually want justice as much as they want vengence and left to their own devices, will dole out this vengence in spades.

 

It's human nature to desire vengence. If someone we love is victimized, even if we don't actually do anything, we probably fantasize about it, and, given the opportunity, might actually act on those fantasies. Many people would gladly pull the exectutioner's switch on such a perpetrator.

 

So, I asked myself if such is human nature, can it be wrong?  I think so. I know for myself my whole life is one big fight against my own nature in hopes to somehow transcend it and become a better person.  Vigilantism, to me, is giving into one's baser side. Attaining vengence does nothing to alter what may have occured and does nothing to improve the condition of the victim. What it does is gratify one's own needs or desires. So, in that sense, it's a selfish response that has less to do with the victim than it does with me, me, me.  Maybe there's an element of honor involved. "A man has to do what a man has to do." But part of what a man has to do is to elevate himself and obey the laws of the land and the laws of his personal god, if he has one. The laws of the land are obvious since it's unlikely any condone vigilantism. I don't know much about many religions, but from what I do know, I would suggest that one could not condone vigilantism and still be a Christian, a follower of the teachings of Jesus, because Jesus patently taught against such things.  But the teachings of nearly all religions are meant to pull people from the quagmire of human nature onto a higher plane.  Let the law of the land and God be the judges, juries and executioners as such things are much too far beyond the capabitilies of flawed and culpable individuals.

The legal system is like democracy: it's not perfect, but it's the system that works best. No system can be perfect, and they will all have flaws (like trying to find the perfect opening...). Vigilantism only occurs when there are percieved injustices within the system. However the system will always appear injust to someone (it's a zero-sum game). For instance: in the case of rape, it is very difficult to prove, but the victim knows it happened. Either the suspect gets away with it (injust to the victim), or some suspects will be unfairly jailed. Either way there is an injustice.

Vigilantism in culture generally depicts a one-sided view: the viewer is generally shown the crime in question, and so knows it happened. No jury ever gets this privilege.