Vigilante Justice

[Jariel]

I've covered this in another thread, but it's kind of been turned into a male vs. female debate, so I've started a new thread.

I'm just interested to hear what your opinions on vigilante justice are.

Personally, I don't believe the punishment should be relative to the crime. I believe if someone does something bad against someone else, they deserve whatever punishment that other person finds fitting.

In my opinion, if someone is mugged and they want to see the perpetrator nailed to a cross, then so be it! The perpetrator had a choice and should not have committed the crime and imposed his/her will onto the victim in the first place. Did the perpetrator think whether the victim DESERVED to get mugged? Hell no, so screw what he/she deserves!

What's more, I don't respect the judicial system at all. It seems more concerned with condemning non-tax payers than dealing with dangerous criminals. Even when they are convicted, the sentences are pathetic. I mean some paedophiles and rapists walk out after 2 years! That's a joke!

However, if a paedophile should end up in general population, the prisoners (and some of the guards) will often take care of business the vigilante way. Now that's justice!

I know I have extreme views and I'll admit it, but am open to any opinions.

 

[daSoCalpimp]

Well think about it this way, most criminals are crazy, if you try to do vigilate justice, they will get you back after they do their time. Will you feel better after you beat up a criminal?, or is it for your own personal validation? Cause the vibe i'm getting from you is, you want to beat up criminals/be a vigilante cause you think its cool or something? Am I right/wrong?

Alot of people would like to beat up criminals (vigilante fantasizers), or cops (people in the hood/rappers), cause they want to feed there own neurotic validation.

If you are going to be a vigilate you should do it for the virtuos reasons safety and protection of society and not for personal reasons to quell your need for validation.

Here are some ruminations on the legal system, so you understand it better

The best way to reduce crime is to make sentencing harsher or increase the resources necessary to prosecute criminals.

Resources cost money.

If you get life for mugging, you'll think twice, and hopefully decrease the prison population through\deterance.

If you increase resources like cops, judges, you'll increase prosecution rates, which deter crime, but its at a loss of money to society. Its a bunch of tradeoffs, MONEY vs Criminal Prosecurion.

But one thing I don't approve of is the way criminals are treated after the serve. If you do the time for the crime, you should be a free man without any marks on your record. But what they do is create rap sheets where people can't get jobs, or are treated as sexual predators.

Now these people can't get back into society.

If you got to give them rap sheets and sexual predator status then they shouldn't of been released in the first place.


Also who and how much a person serves depends on how who the crime affected.

Murder- Affects Victim, Society
Tax evasion- Affects Society
Drunk Driving- Affects Society
Drunk Driving Accident - Affects victim, Affects Society

Got to reseach this stuff

 

[SELF-MASTERY]

If you increase resources like cops, judges, you'll increase prosecution rates, which deter crime, but its at a loss of money to society. Its a bunch of tradeoffs, MONEY vs Criminal Prosecurion.********************************************


I'm going to guess that you haven't taken any crju classes or worked with Law Enforcement before. (Sorry if this sounds rude)

This going to be scattered........

Community policing has been showed to limit some forms of crime, but consequently crime rate increases in adjacent areas where police presence isn't as high.

Stronger laws and longer sentences have never worked. I reference prohibition and the crack epidemic of the 80's: Prohibition always creates a black market that bequeaths violence, and 80's drug legislation did not reduce the number of people selling crack (the answer why not can be found in the structural, functional, cultural, and institutional reasons for this phenomenon)

I agree that a rapist and child molesters deserve more time than a tax evader or drug dealer.

Vigilante Justice--- Hell yes I’m all for it and I’ve never been a fan of the death penalty, because I find death to be an inadequate punishment; I prefer a torture sentence of 10 yrs (make them want to die.)

 

[SELF-MASTERY]

why can't I edit my post?

 

[il_duce]

Watch the movie Death Wish 3, it's a great example of vigilante justice.

 

[Joe The Homophobe]

second amendment spreading in USA
While most European countries are at the mercy of criminals, Americans have not only the legal right to defend themselves, but the legal right to have the weapons to do it.

Watch the movie Death Wish 3, it's a great example of vigilante justice.

You my friend just got positive rep! watch all death wish movies quality entertainment

 

[Rovalier]

So what if a woman wrongly accused you of raping her to get back at you and a bunch of vigilantes beat the living **** out of you? Do you consider that justice? The current system might be ****, but you can't forget some of the liberties they protect, for better or for worse. There is some saying that you are better off letting ten guilty go free than jailing one innocent man.

You also have to account the costs of keeping a prisoner in jail. It is from 50 grand to 150 grand a year. EACH PERSON. THAT IS YOUR TAX DOLLAR!!!!! In Canada, taxpayers pay 70 grand for each year a person goes to jail.

They should consider scaling the fines to make back some money. Like in Europe, I think in Finland where the fines are proportionate to your net worth or income. I heard this guy got a 50 grand speeding ticket over there once. Great way to get money and pay for jail fees too. As politician say they will toughen up the crime, they should also increase $% on traffic violations. I say patrol the richest part of towns especially. Get those bloody noisy wannabe street racers.

 

[Friendly Otter]

Seems there are two ways to think of punishment for a crime: one, is that the punishment should match the crime, sort of like restoring balance in the universe. The other, that the punishment should have a certain result.

I agree with the last one, but I do recognize people's instinctive desire for the first one. When we have been wronged, we want revenge. That has to be taken into account. The victim has the right to revenge, it's part of the healing process.

Then, the crime should also have positive results for society: it should keep the criminal from causing damage for a while, and teach him a lesson; make him think twice of doing the same thing again. If the criminal is of a kind that will always cause damage if you let him out again, then he should never be seen in the streets again.

Now, of course the government won't tell you to meet out justice on your own. If they did, every idiot out there would mess with situations he doesn't understand. But anyone who knows himself to be an intelligent person who can assess a situation correctly, who knows a wrong has been committed and needs to have consequences - not only does he have the right to punish a criminal, it is his duty. Always do that which has the best consequences. If it means killing the man who raped your girlfriend, say, then it is your duty to do so.

 

[LowPlainsDrifter]

The best way to reduce crime is to make sentencing harsher or increase the resources necessary to prosecute criminals.

I think increasing the harshness of the penalty is only window dressing by politicians to make it seem like they're fighting crime. It costs almost nothing in tax dollars (except perhaps the printing costs of updating some gov docs like sentencing guidelines).

What I think really cuts crime is increasing the certainty of getting caught - more money for forensics labs, more patrol cops and detectives...

While I'm definitely not in favor of vigilante justice (if people are empowered to do this, then what's to stop them from settling a gambling debt or petty argument with violence? What if they go after the person who they think robbed their house or hurt their kid and end up hurting or killing the wrong person?) I do believe in vigorous self-defense - the right to carry, and the right to stand your ground and use any weapon if confronted with robbery or assault.

 

[Exo]

I agree with vigilante justice to an extent, c'mon getting executed just for picking someone's pocket is jyst nuts. Sure beat the living hell out of the ****er and send em to the hospital, but after that it's just being spitefull.

That said though, I do think most juicial systems in the world are a bit lax.

 

[Visceral]

Vigilante justice would lead to chaos. There would be no consistency in laws, enforcement, or punishment, just the whims of whichever man has the biggest gun or the largest posse. There would be no accountability either; might would make right, so you can go along with the vigilantes or become their next target.

Without an institution to govern them, the vigilantes would not consider themselves held to any code of conduct. Even if they couldn't bring themselves to punish someone totally on a whim, if they thought you did something wrong - or just didn't like you - there would be nothing to stop them from beating a [false] confession out of you ... and then a quick proclamation in the town square followed by a bullet in your brain. Do you seriously think anyone in town wouldn't be scared sh!tless of the vigilantes and would speak up for you? I didn't think so.

Vigilantes have never been much for evidence, lawyers, or trials, so you could expect the innocent to be strung up with the guilty, as mere suspicion would probably be enough to arouse their anger. And it wouldn't even have to be a bona fide crime that the victim is accused of, only something that the community (or more likely just the vigilante himself) doesn't approve of.

If the punishment doesn't fit the crime, you don't have justice, you have revenge. And if that punishment is applied indiscriminately, you don't even have revenge, just mindless violence. I also have no doubt that even the most would moral vigilantes would eventually become corrupted by their power and seize "Give me what I want or you die!" control of their community.

As corrupt and inefficient as the government might be, it follows a set of rules that are known to all, agreed upon by all, and aren't easily changed, so I know where I stand with it. That's the reason I'd trust it over a bunch of self-righteous yahoos with guns any day.

 

[JohnJones]

I agree with the chaos comment above. The very notion of the rule of law is an understanding of what consequenses apply in what cases -- granted, it cannot be perfect, but we must try -- rather, I mean, the state must try, with blind justice.

That said, I'm a strong believer in the common law right to resist assults and batteries and defense of self, others and personal property, and I can't stand it when I hear about normal folks who have to go through a grand jury process or some kind of evaluation for trying to kick someone off their property, etc.

 

[LowPlainsDrifter]

If the punishment doesn't fit the crime, you don't have justice, you have revenge. .

Governments are already in the business of meting out punishments that far exceed the crime committed.

 

[Visceral]

Governments are already in the business of meting out punishments that far exceed the crime committed.

True, but which governments, and in which cases?

I was talking about the United States government, and not about serious crimes.

 

[Porky]

The best way to reduce crime is to make sentencing harsher or increase the resources necessary to prosecute criminals.

Resources cost money.

If you get life for mugging, you'll think twice, and hopefully decrease the prison population through\deterance.

actually, the best way to reduce crime is to increase the certainty of punishment rather than the severity of it. Less than half of all of the crimes committed in the US every year get reported, and only a small percentage of those are actually solved. Statistically speaking, if you're a criminal you have a pretty good chance of getting away.

Now, what do you think will work better to deter crime? If every thief who gets caught gets killed, but only one out of every hundred thieves gets caught, or if every thief who gets caught gets 5 years in prison but 80/100 thieves get caught?

I won't argue against the fact that the death penalty and life imprisonment deter crime much more effectively than shorter imprisonment sentences, but the fact is that most criminals have no idea about the kind of time that they're facing until AFTER they've been arrested.

True, but which governments, and in which cases?

I was talking about the United States government, and not about serious crimes.

The United States government.

Look up Andrade v. Lockyer, Ewing v. California, or Jerry Dewayne Williams...just to name a few.

And don't get me started on drug arrests.

 

[daSoCalpimp]

Well I was writing it a little bit fast and not enough proof reading

The theory of crime and quatitative explanations to criminal acts depend on 2 things

1)severity of punishment
2)probability of getting caught

Instead of saying "best way" I should of stated the 2 variables of criminal theory. Increasing either of those decreases crime.

 

[Permission]

This is stupid on many levels. So if a girl walks across my lawn then I can shoot her in the head? Another problem is that if such a system would be in place, crimes like murder and rape would actually go up because it wouldn't be viewed as being a big deal (this has been shown in real life examples).

 

[Visceral]

The United States government.

Look up Andrade v. Lockyer, Ewing v. California, or Jerry Dewayne Williams...just to name a few.

And don't get me started on drug arrests.

If these cases were first time offenses, then the punishment would indeed be excessive, but when viewed in the context of a repeat offender for whom the traditional lesser punishments are not sufficient deterrent, it becomes possible to argue that there is no other way to protect society.

The 9th Circuit Court and the Supreme Court have treated trivial "third strike" crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies, and overturned previous sentences in order to avoid this consequence of California's law. However, this is a product of the personal, subjective attitude towards crime and punishment of the judges involved. Vigilantes would no doubt use the same personal, subjective approach, so you could argue that they might behave the same way, but there would be no guarantee. In the more conservative parts of the country, where crime is viewed more negatively than normal, vigilantes might even adopt a "one strike, you're out" policy.

What would you suggest be done with repeat offenders?

I agree with you that so-called "victimless crimes", like drug use, should not be crimes at all. However, the same problems would occur whether drug laws were made by the states or by vigilantes instead of the federal government. Penalties for drug use would only decrease or be replaced with mandatory rehab (preferably at the addict's, not the taxpayers', expense) in places where popular opinion would allow it, and would only be eliminated where drug use is socially acceptable. In places where drug use is frowned upon, the penalties would stay the same, and might get worse, especially given the limited resources at vigilantes' disposal.

This is the reason that vigilantism would not solve the problems of punishment disproportionate to the crime in any situation, and might even favor excessive punishment. Even more than the government, vigilantes would respond to their community's idiosyncratic beliefs of what consitutes acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and would definitely be at the mercy of their own subjective, even arbitrary attitude towards punishment, making them just as likely, if not more likely, to be even harsher than the government than it is likely to make them more lenient.

 

[SELF-MASTERY]

I've always believed that laws were created for the weak and the wicked; I'm neither.

 

[Porky]

If these cases were first time offenses, then the punishment would indeed be excessive, but when viewed in the context of a repeat offender for whom the traditional lesser punishments are not sufficient deterrent, it becomes possible to argue that there is no other way to protect society.

What would you suggest be done with repeat offenders?

clearly repeat offenders should be punished more severely than first time offenders. However, the fact that these cases deal with third strike laws does not change the fact that the punishments were horribly disproportional to the crimes committed. Stealing 200 dollars worth of children's videos from a large store does not equate to 25 years to LIFE imprisonment regardless of how many times it's done by one person. putting those men away not only increases their personal criminality, but also wastes hundreds of thousands if not millions of taxpayer dollars and sends a horrible precedent for the future of sentencing in America.

to address something that Jariel said: the idea that guards abusing prisoners is ever good is ridiculous. there's no doubt in my mind that American prisons (and prisons in general) deter crime to some extent, but there is also strong evidence that the harsh conditions of US prisons actually produce criminals. quite frankly it's a miracle if anybody is able to spend even a few months in an American prison without becoming a worse, more violent, more dangerous human being than they were before.

it's no coincidence that Scandinavian countries, which have the nicest prisons in the world (some even are reminiscent of college campuses) and the lightest sentencing procedures also have the lowest crime rates.