Vigilantism: Discuss

Is it ever justifiable for the individual to take justice into his own hands?

in my opinion yes, but only as a last resort.

for instance if say someone attempted to **** someone you love, got arrested went to court and got off with no sentence whats so ever, even though he has attempted to **** this person 3 times before(and gone to court each time)

Then yes, i do feel its justifiable in extreme circumstances.

On a day to day basis, no. In certain scenarios, where what your doing is justified, then yes. But then "justified" is subjective, so, I dunno.

No, never. It's stupid.

If someone kills your loved one and you go kill them, I understand that, but it's not justifiable. Vigilantism is never excusable, but it can be understandable.

We have laws and law enforcement for a reason. They're not perfect, but if everyone went around doing whatever they wanted, the world would be anarchic and a much worse place to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

No, never. It's stupid.

If someone kills your loved one and you go kill them, I understand that, but it's not justifiable. Vigilantism is never excusable, but it can be understandable.

We have laws and law enforcement for a reason. They're not perfect, but if everyone went around doing whatever they wanted, the world would be anarchic and a much worse place to live.

---

Well said. :D

Of course it is

Just because society has us believing that the only people with authority are cops dose not mean we should just stand idly by when the police aren't around.

Would that technically still be vigilantism if it's within the law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by olaph

I agree an eye for an eye is a flawed argument.

But what if your "own form" of justice isn't murder, or isn't breaking the law?

For instance your own brand of justice could be finding something they do or a way that puts them behind bars?

What if its a loophole in the system that puts them where they should be and off the streets?

most people are talking about dire extremes which is stupid.

But what about doing it in a smart,legal way that makes you feel like you have prevented them from hurting a loved one but hasn't been a crime itself?

If you were to approach it within the law, does that still make it wrong?

---

If it's within the law, obviously it's not wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

If it's within the law, obviously it's not wrong.

---

So in that regard, your own brand of justice could indeed be considered "ok"

But how many people would think instead of going on some vengeful spree of crime :P

and while technically what i was saying isn't Vigilantism i figure its something worth thinking/talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by olaph

So in that regard, your own brand of justice could indeed be considered "ok"

But how many people would think instead of going on some vengeful spree of crime :P

and while technically what i was saying isn't Vigilantism i figure its something worth thinking/talking about.

---

Then it's not your own brand of justice.

It's theirs, still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSkald

Also, PG6, you havn't recently seen Law Abiding Citizen, have you?

---

Yes, I have. Great movie. And yes, part of the reason why I started this topic. I was very upset with the ending, which I won't spoil. Personally I sometimes really do want retribution, and though I'm not completely against it, I never act upon it because it's a slippery slope into chaos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

If it's within the law, obviously it's not wrong.

---

I kind of disagree, there are stupid laws which are wrong, in my opinion (Especially the old ones which aren't followed anymore but are still technically laws) and there are things that are illegal which I don't think are wrong. You could still be within these laws and not be wrong, but the breaking of them I wouldn't consider wrong either.

I do agree that vigilantism is not a good idea though. The problem I see with vigilantism is that it would often (from what I picture) focus on revenge instead of rehabilitation. Society's laws are meant to protect people and rehabilitate (or discourage them from doing them again) those who have broken the laws (or imprision permanently / kill if the crime was serious enough, which isn't acceptable by everyone).

Only if you can pull it off like Batman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheJESTERJ

Only if you can pull it off like Batman.

---

LOL. How does being able to pull it off make it any more justifiable, in your opinion?
Keep in mind I'm playing Devil's Advocate here.

It doesn't make it justifiable. It just makes people think it is. I mean is anyone here willing to tell Batman to stop?

It'll never be justifiable, but it can sure be made easier to do.

To protect one's self or loved ones then yes, but otherwise no.

There are bad people in this world....but murder is still murder.

Lots of bad things happen.....let the people who get paid to stop these bad things do their jobs.

Batman isn't real! He is a liar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oisterboy

Yes.

Despite my peaceful ways, I almost want to believe in "an eye for an eye".

If people could be fair about it...yes.

---

Someone kills another by accident.

How do you get around that? How do you get around all the millions of variations?

Manslaughter, hmm? Do you "accidentally" get to kill the person who accidentally killed your loved one?

Nobody can suggest that an eye-for-an-eye works. It's not justice, it's vengeance. That's no way to run a society.

If your knocking them out and dragging them to the police station with some evidence attached spider-manz stylez, then yes.

If you kill someone accidentally in defense of a loved one, then yes.

If it's just killing when it's not an accident and you want your personal idea of "Justice" to be fufilled, then no. That's not justifiable.

It really depends on the circumstances.

like batman?

yes.

To those who referenced Spider-Man and Batman, that's precisely what one of the underlying themes of Watchmen was; the inherent ridiculousness and absurdity of costumed vigilantes.

If someone was going around in the Batsuit, beating people up at night, I'd want him off the streets as soon as possible. In theory, it's great; someone to scare criminals into not being criminals, but all it takes is one nutjob without fear, like the Joker, to result in craptons more crime than one man can ever stop.

Batman references are the best. Hypothetical references are the best.

If you where ***** wrongfully and you decide to cut the perpetrators junk off....then sure I'd look away if I was in the jury.

Now if you went on a crazy "Junk chopping" spree, and took it into your hands to dismember rapists.....I would probably write a movie about it and make millions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croix

In many cases, justice is blind. We live in a society where if you beat the shit out of someone who breaks into your house, you can be sued and go to jail.

---

That's just sick. :(

Our so called Law is merely opinion forced into our minds since we were children. Law is nothing more than a tool used by the ones in power to allow themselves to stay in power. Think of law as something that keeps everyone in their own classes.

In my opinion, Capital Punishment should be legal once more and used widely. We get these people that go to jail for a short period of time, then they get released only to do the same thing over and over. I personally think the law should be changed so that the Death Penalty should be given to whomever commits a crime that warrants it. Take a look at all these useless prisons, they waste time and resources. Should just take all the prisoners and execute them all now to make the world a better place.

Deterrence of crime is what is needed in our society, not punishments. So for me, Vigilantism is a yes, if the "law" won't bring proper Judgment to crime, then let the citizens do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judgment

I take offense at this quote. Much of what I've said can be backed up by evidence and facts. Merely dismissing something just because it does not agree with what you believe in is just plain ignorance. If you had actually read what I wrote, it is easy to tell what the point I'm trying to make is.

Even if you dismiss something as "psychotic ramblings", with enough backup evidence, even such ramblings can be made into a sensible argument. Honestly, my final thesis was based around Death Penalty and it worked out fine for me.

Much of what I've argued can be seen in the works of Lombroso, Beccaria, and Durkheim. The mere fact that you'd dismiss something already proven by notable theorists shows just how much you yourself know. Your lack of knowledge is evident in your posts.

---

No offense, but you just said an 18 year old man deserves to be put to death for use of a natural herb. ANYONE that has broken the law, to you, must be killed.

I really see no credibility in anything you've said since. You are a dangerous thinker, or non-thinker as it may be.