Poll: Vigilantism

[Rofl-Mayo]

So I was thinking the other day and a though popped into my head. Is vigilantism appropriate and should be legalized? My answer was yes, some vigilantes are helpful to society, but for some reason people see what they are doing as wrong. What is your view on this, Escapist?

 

[FalloutJack]

I find this topic unusual for gaming discussion.

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

I find this topic unusual for gaming discussion.

I didn't realize I categorized it as that.

 

[Holy_Handgrenade]

I agree with some vigilantism but there is no where to draw the line and making it legal just wouldn't work in society.

 

[Baby Tea]

Who needs proof, lets just shoot people we think are wrong?!

Actually, police are trained to handle law breakers. Breaking the law to punish law breakers isn't a good idea.

No joke.
Where is the line drawn? And who chooses the severity of punishment? The mob/vigilantes?
No thanks.

I support our men and women in blue who have had the training and education to deal with this sort of thing.
Not some regular jack-ass who wants revenge and has a weapon of some kind.

EDIT: I moved the thread.

 

[FalloutJack]

I find this topic unusual for gaming discussion.

I didn't realize I categorized it as that.

Funny. I guess the guys at the Escapist didn't realize it either, given the forum.

 

[Sixcess]

I vote No. Vigilantism in the real world isn't Charles Bronson pumping bullets into deserving rapists, it's tabloid fuelled mobs murdering some poor bastard because they wrongfully believe he's a sex offender.

 

[ApophisMP]

Punisher= YES need i say more?

 

[XJ-0461]

No. The police essentailly saying "fuck it, go sort it out for yourself" will lead to exponetial rises in murders, either of criminals or vigilantes. And if everyone were a vigilante, then everything decends into chaos as what one man says is acceptable may be too far for a second man and too little for a third. The law (usually) works because there is (usually) an acceptable punishment for each crime.

 

[Naheal]

Vigilantism sidesteps any and all protections that are provided by due process.

In other words, no. It makes for a good story, but it isn't something that should ever be done IRL.

 

[mad825]

Well, I suppose we can now bring back lynching.

this is what happened in the old old days, lets not bring it back.

Extrajudicial punishment should be a thing of the past and would only serve as an perfect example that we are still primitive (animal by nature), we now have evolved socially to a point where the perceived suspect could be innocent, lets not devolve.

 

[DkLnBr]

There is a reason we use trained police officers to deal with crime. When the Mob Rules you get things like the salem witch trials. Vigilantes, more often than not, tend to use anger, fear, and their own personal prejudices rather than a fair trial when dealing with the accused.

No. The police essentailly saying "fuck it, go sort it out for yourself" will lead to exponetial rises in murders, either of criminals or vigilantes. And if everyone were a vigilante, then everything decends into chaos as what one man says is acceptable may be too far for a second man and too little for a third. The law (usually) works because there is (usually) an acceptable punishment for each crime.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
So how about we just leave the vigilante justice in the past where it belongs (or in comic books)

 

[Corvuus]

Maybe someone (OP or other saying pro-vigilante) should actually cite some real world examples of this working or being needed.

Yes, there is Batman, Punisher, etc. but the only time I can really think of vigilante being 'good' or necessary is 'wild wild west' type scenarios (if it ever actually happened 100+ years ago) where the villain is the 'law' with money, power, etc. and the lone ranger brings him down.

Isn't the main point of vigilantism getting 'justice' in situations where 'justice' cannot be given due to some circumstance? If a criminal is getting death penalty, (or agreeably suitably punishment) then what is the need of 'lawless' violence? Only 'need' would be if the law wasn't on your side or, for some reason, not able to prosecute a villain... but even that is questionable.

C

 

[superbatranger]

We do have police officers who are properly trained in this matter.

 

[Woodsey]

Real vigilantism isn't Batman, it's a bunch of crazed fucks who are convinced the quiet old man a few streets down has touched their kids so they're going to set his house on fire.

Why have laws if you're going to do whatever you want with it?

 

[Jamash]

Fuck evidence and trials, you are what the mob says you are and will be punished accordingly.

It's like that doctor who was hounded out of her home by a vigilante mob because they thought she was a sex offender.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

Who cares if the word Paediatrician means "Doctor who works in the in the field of infant health know as Paediatrics"? Her job title almost had the world Paedo in it, which was enough for her to be guilty... because if she didn't like to have sex with children then why did she have a job that almost sounds like paedophile?

Don't think those perverts who take care of people's feet are safe either, pedicurist almost has the world pedo in it too, so we better take care of them just so our children can be safe.

 

[Larnx]

For some situations, I can see the point of vigilantism. Though the chances of us ''simpletons'' ever encountering such a case are minimal.