Is there anything truly wrong with vigilanty justice?

Question

Seriously, suppose you had indisputable evidence (video, uncoerced written confession, etc.) of someone victimizing you and/or your family. Would it really be all that wrong to just take them out back in the tool shed and kick the living crap out of them or sever some limbs? I work in corrections and prisons and jails are just places for these people to socialize. There is no deterent left in this country except for immediate, swift, harsh retribution.

Answer 1

If you have indisputable evidence, there shouldn't be any problem with a fair trial. And an unfair trail is never justice. We must be a society of laws and justice for us to survive.

Answer 2

While I agree that the punishment for criminals is not nearly harsh enough, I don't think vigilante justice is the answer. I think some serious reform needs to be done in that department. Convicted felons should face a physically taxing punishment - make them go out and dig ditches in the desert for a cable company or something (random example, I apologize).

They need to do be doing something beneficial to society and they need to feel some sort of pain so they think twice about committing a crime again. Their lives should be more difficult in prison than they should be on the streets.

I don't think such reform will happen though because too many people would think it was "inhumane." And because of that, it is tempting to take it in your own hands. I think it's best to let the system do what it was intended to do and stay out of it because you're only looking for trouble when you do what the government should be doing in this case.

Answer 3

suppose such "indisputable evidence" is wrong, this could cause a major problem on your part. the reason that correctional facilities and the law enforcement institution is in place is to punish people, the same people that you want to take out back and bust a few bones. one of the purposes of the gov't is to protect it's citizens and provide law enforcement. so why risk the possibility of becoming a permanent member of you much loved correctional facility, when you have a large, organized, trained thinktank, designed to preform such justice, without the pain. and i must agree with "bryan" "vigilante justice can get out of hand very quickly"

Answer 4

And what level of evidence is good enough? "Well ah saw him ma, he were kickin' billy bob!" is that good enough to kill him? But there's been a precedent legal case where people weren't prosecuted because of vigilante justice - so what if there's a little less evidence, it's still "justice".

How about if everyone is biased against the person who's been the victim of vigilantes? Say a Muslim who spoke bad English was believed to have raped a white Christian woman. There is no evidence except her word against his. But vigilanteism is ok, she is believed - so he's lynched. Does that sound like Alabama in the 50's? Does that sound like the type of country you want to live in?

Answer 5

The problem with vigilante justice is that it gets out of hand very rapidly. The idea of catching someone red handed sets up certain caveats, but it is not always this cut and dry. When you appoint yourself judge and jury it is easy to cross the line and worse yet the lines often become blurred. Our system of justice may not be perfect, but it is better than the anarchy which would occur with everyone taking the law into their own hands.

Answer 6

Government has a contract with the people: You give up your right to administer justice as you see it, and the government will administer justice on your behalf.

Is government doing the job? There are many reasons why it might not - but the main one is that if we eliminated crime, a large part of the government would become unnecessary.

Take your job for instance. If criminals knew that justice would be swift, harsh and certain, most would look for other work. That would reduce prison populations, court jobs, police jobs - and reduce the level of control the government has over its subjects, er, citizens. (No more police state.)

Here's an example:
Besides those who object on "moral" grounds, who does NOT want drugs legalized?

1. Law enforcement, courts, lawyers
2. Drug dealers

If drugs were legal, all the tax dollars that currently go to "enforcement" could be redirected to something useful. That's over $200 billion a year.

Also, if drugs were legal, crime would drop. Why? Because drugs would be cheap, users wouldn't have to commit crimes to pay for them, and criminals couldn't make money selling them. More proof: Recall the drive-by shootings and such during prohibition? Heard of two bar-tenders shooting it out over the right to sell a beer lately?

So the answer to your question is, your "contract" not to do justice yourself is with the government. If the government has lived up to its end of the bargain, then vigilante justice is wrong. But if the contract has been invalidated through government inaction, I say you have every right to act on your own behalf.

Answer 7

Yes, morally it would be wrong. More importantly, most people do not exhibit good enough judgement to determe guilt, or suitable punishment. Lastly, it isn't pratical. Real isn't about right or wrong. It's whether something is legal or not legal. You can do whatever you want. As long as you are willing to pay the price, and do the time.

Answer 8

That becomes chaos. Organized government of the people's justice brings stability and continuity.

For further reference (or lack of the above)....see Iraq.

If you want a good illustration of how your scenario can go wrong, see (or read) "Mystic River".

Answer 9

Wow. complicated to attraction to close what to say to someone who would not care if a death row inmate is innocuous or not - and then has the nerve to signify that in the journey that they don't seem to be to blame of homicide that's o.k. to kill them besides because they ought to have done different crimes. it type of feels to me you're for the death penalty than a procedures more desirable for basically homicide. that can make you a monster your self - get it?

Answer 10

how do you know it's "indisputable" evidence, that's the problem, you need someone impartial to examine the evidence and determine guilt, that's why we have judges and juries