Poll: Vigilantism

[Dags90]

Legal vigilantism is like legal murder, it doesn't make coherent sense. It's called vigilantism because it's illegal, you can get revenge without it being vigilantism just as you can kill someone without it being murder. The difference is that vigilantism and murder are what we call illegal instances of revenge and homicide, respectively.

So yeah. Unless you want to clarify this isn't a coherent question and so I will not vote. Perhaps you believe in different standards at which revenge becomes illegal? Or the inclusion of revenge as a positive defense against certain crimes? I'm not sure because you're unclear.

 

[zehydra]

I think a legal vigilantism would be a contradiction of terms.

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

It's all a matter of context...

 

[XT inc]

its more of the scale of what people classify vigilantism. You can't do a lot in getting justice which is crap. Like recent news of a asian market owner chasing down a thief, holding him until cops arrive and then he gets arrested for assault and confining the crook illegally. I just can't support the bare bone legal system that gives you the sole option of be the victim and we may just do something about it over the course of 4 years.

some one breaks into your house, you should be allowed to restrain them until cops get there without getting charged or sued, unless you go way out of bounds.

 

[Rakkana]

I'm going to say no. Just because of how it can be abused.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

We used to have Vigilantism. Witch Hunters, Mobs and Posses, I'd say these early forms of 'law enforcement' were pretty vigilante. We still have them, only now they're the bobbies.

Seriously, we already kind of have legalized vigilantism; THE POLICE. Now if you want to talk about Police rights and what they can and can't do... that's a different ballgame for a once supreme authority, now reduced to a task force deployed to slap naughty children on the wrist (figuratively speaking of course, heaven forbid a police office smack a child /sarcasm)

 

[Peteron]

Yea next time pay attention to what category you place the poll in. At least you fixed it. Anyway, to be on topic, vigilantism is completely unnecessary. There is a difference between helping stop a robbery you just happened to pass by during, and kicking criminal's asses for a living. There would be nothing but chaos and confusion. This isn't a comic book, this is real life. People would abuse their positions, if anything it would lead into the increase of crime. That is possibly one of the worst things you can legalize.

 

[eljawa]

It can be, in situations where the law is corrupt or legal channels have been unsuccesful at solving the problem. Kinda like if a kid beats up a kid who constantly bullies another kid, to no action of the teachers. Or in a V for Vendetta situation where the law is the problem (so like in oppresive countries)

 

[theamazingbean]

From a strictly pragmatic point of view, the only problem with vigilantism is when they go after the wrong target. Experience has shown that presumption of innocence and due process are the best ways to avoid punishing the innocent, and that unilateral action will almost inevitably worsen the situation.

 

[Leopard]

As cool as it is to imagine the Dark Knight stalking the streets to deal out some real punishment on the dregs of society, it would only end in racist and bigotted lynch mobs attacking anyone and anything.

 

[shinigamisparda]

It depends on how you define "vigilantism." If you define it as "taking the law into your own hands" then under most situations I say no. I, however, do believe in "aggressive model citizenry," mostly in situations where this is no authority figure present or when the authority figure present has been instructed to only observe and report.

For example, a few months ago there was a story about a woman being mugged in a crowded subway station despite there being two security guards present. Since they had no authority to arrest anyone they could only stand by and plead with the offenders to stop as they viciously beat the the woman before taking her purse. Someone should've clotheslined those bastards.

 

[Duskwaith]

Like anything its to open to abuse.

If there is cold hard evidence that the person has committed the crime such as a well known gangsta or pimp, then maybe id be sympathetic with them.

In NI right now there is an armed vigilante group thats shooting alot of drug dealers etc. not turning out well either

 

[Jedoro]

It depends on how you define "vigilantism." If you define it as "taking the law into your own hands" then under most situations I say no. I, however, do believe in "aggressive model citizenry," mostly in situations where this is no authority figure present or when the authority figure present has been instructed to only observe and report.

For example, a few months ago there was a story about a woman being mugged in a crowded subway station despite there being two security guards present. Since they had no authority to arrest anyone they could only stand by and plead with the offenders to stop as they viciously beat the the woman before taking her purse. Someone should've clotheslined those bastards.

Either those guards are pussies or the laws there are bullshit. I'm a security guard now, and while we can't arrest anyone unless it's a Citizen's Arrest, we can still use necessary force to protect people from harm. I'm sure what they were doing was a felony, the guards personally witnessed it, and the attackers could've gotten away before police arrived; perfectly legit for a Citizen's Arrest.

I wouldn't mind vigilantism returning if, after the vigilante had acted, they had to go to court and convince a jury of 12 that what they did was right. It would definitely need refinement, but it's a way for things to get done immediately while still holding people accountable. Not foolproof, but I think there's a chance a system like that could work.

 

[Declaro]

It's weird that you mention this, because in Sweden right now we're having a problem with this racist asshole (the newspapers call him Lasermannen) who's been killing Muslim/Arabic immigrants.

Well, naturally, the Muslim community was less than thrilled, but a few crazy guys (including a friend of a friend) have decided that, no, it's not enough for the police to go and hunt this murderer down, this guy has to go hunt down Lasermannen HIMSELF and kill him! It's completely stupid, has a chance of WORSENING hate crime violence than decreasing it, and makes the Muslim community look bad.

I think that, in a place where you have a working (not perfect, but working) legal system and relatively uncorrupt police, vigilantism is just mob violence. Let the people whose jobs it is to handle crime, deal with crime. Help them, gather evidence, stalk the bad guy if you want to, but don't go taking matters wholly into your own hands.

tl;dr Vigilantism is never justified in societies with working legal systems, and you're not Batman.

 

[Danny Ocean]

How the hell have so many people replied yes to this?

I won't bother repeating what others have said, but it's so obvious why not to have vigilantism I can't see why anyone would condone it.

Legalising vigilantism might seem good for small crimes like graffitti and the like, but it's such a huge slippery slope if you legalise it wholesale.

 

[kannibus]

Sure. Can't expect those hardworking cops to do everything you know. They have families and lives that they'd like to live, so it's only considerate of us to lend a hand when things get a bit tight.

After all, in the words of one police chief: "52 calls? Ugh, can't anyone in this town take the law into their own hands?"

 

[trophykiller]

in some situations: yes. others: no. example: if it's a minor thing like graffiti, the person who owns the property should be allowed to chase them off, but not kill them. if it's something major like armed robbery, everyone should chip in to take this guy down.