I've been involved in a couple of questions lately where a member of the public has taken to dish out a 'local justice'.
I've been absolutely amazed at the amount of people who are pro-vigilantism and think things should be taken even further.
Do people really think that having uncontrolled mobs who act as judge, jury and executioner is a good thing?
I'm not saying that the judiciary is perfect - not by a long shot, but it must be better than mob of Vigilantis?
2007-03-12 10:21:49 · 17 answers · asked by mark 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
With you on that one mate! Summary local "justice" is very tempting, given the scumbags the law can't touch. But mob rule, no way; criminals now, you & me next. Bullies never run out of victims.
As the legal "Man" ( Lord Denning, the greatest legal mind of the 20th century, I'm told) said "It is better that a hundred guilty men walk free than for one innocent man to convicted"
2007-03-12 11:04:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely anti-vigilantism here.
Our laws were established for a reason, and that reason was to ensure justice. What you and I may consider to be "justice" will absolutely differ at some point in time, so that's why we have laws and a judicial system to impose them.
Like it or not, even thugs and crooks have rights as American citizens; that's what our Constitution says, and I'm not willing to monkey around with the Constitution just to ensure what you may call "justice" and what I may call "denial of due process."
The only difference between a mob and a group of vigilantees is that the mob doesn't have a purpose or a leader. Other than that, they're the same.
We may not have a perfect judicial system - I don't think ANY nation does - but I think it's the best one going.
2007-03-12 17:44:34 · answer #2 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are only "pro" vigilantism until they see it in action, then they realize just how much they miss the boys in blue. Nothing is perfect, and the judiciary, with all it's problems is better than mob rule.
2007-03-12 17:25:08 · answer #3 · answered by blogbaba 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Anti-vigilantism. By submitting to being governed by our government we agree to follow its laws. Vigilantism usually involves breaking the law.
That's not to say that people may deserve worse than what they get -- it's just that it is not up to us to be the judges, juries, and executioners.
2007-03-12 17:26:18 · answer #4 · answered by Matt 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
We need more vililantism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
More, and more, our laws, shyster lawyers,and liberal judges are coddling criminals.
For crying out loud, just tune to the news and see what lawbreakers are getting away with . And, the amount of tax bucks to try and retry, to house, to pay attorneys is staggering.
Let the people mete out the justice.
Tell me that the guy who beat up the 101, and the 85 year old women, two days ago, for a measley 40 dollars doesn't deserve vigilante justice!!!!!!!!
How on earth can ANYONE who saw the tapes not believe in vigilantism, knowing that if the guy's caught, he'll probably be sentenced to a drug rehab center and be turned loose!!!!!
ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-03-12 17:30:27 · answer #5 · answered by mantle two 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I have to say that if someone physcially hurt my child or an elderly relative then yes i would take matters into my own hands without a shadow of a doubt.
The criminal justice system needs to be changed and new sentencing needs to be passed.
2007-03-12 17:30:18 · answer #6 · answered by kylie_rm13 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends on how "vigilantism" is defined.
Does it mean patrolling the streets late at night, keeping watch for burglars and muggers with the intent to confront them? I've got no problem with that.
Does it mean gathering a mob to storm the home of a recently-released sex offender, with the intent of beating him or killing him? As much as he might deserve it, I DO have a problem with that.
I guess my guiding principle is this: If American citizens are willing to take it upon themselves to confront criminals engaged in activities that the authorities refuse to acknowledge, or are unable to prosecute, then more power to them. (Examples: The Minutemen, who patrol the border for illegal aliens. A person who shoots an intruder in their home.)
What we ought NOT do is form lynch mobs or attack people who are already being dealt with by, or who would be dealt with if turned in to, the proper authorities.
2007-03-12 17:23:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, I think Lynching was vigilantism. That wasn't very good. It usually targets the usual suspects. Many crimes are not the usual suspects
2007-03-12 17:25:38 · answer #8 · answered by Samantha 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It truly is frightening how many people think it's ok to break the law, if they happen to agree with the results.
Vigilante-ism is just one example of this disturbing trend.
2007-03-12 17:30:38 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Vigilantes break the law just like the thugs.....There is no vigilante laws in our country...
2007-03-12 18:02:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋