After reading some comments I think this is a pretty effective system.They had their day in court. They have their own private jury hiding among the spectators. They decide, based on evidence produced in court if someone is guilty. If the judge is corrupt or some bullshit nullifies the trial and they're released then the name goes on the list.Then they're warned.It's an underground community effort.Confess, leave, or die.
You do know there are people out there like that, that love to torture people or get excitement out of it
Stopping someone who does bad things doesn't require me to divide the human population into "good" and "bad". Merely to deal with people doing bad things when they're foolish enough to do it in front of me.
The justice system is screwed though. Some people don't learn nor do they change after being locked up for a while. Some people deserve to be put down. And im an atheist too so thou shall not kill doesn't resonate with me
murder is still murder regardless of your religious beliefs, and yes you're right, the justice system isn't perfect by any means, and some people don't learn or change. the problem is, how do you decide, as a fallible person with limited information and resources, who deserves to die and who doesn't? how do you decide what evidence is strong enough to make a decision? in this scenario, the guy isn't killing people he watched commit horrific crimes, he's killing people he thinks committed horrific crimes. He could be right every time, or he could kill an innocent person because he didn't do enough evidence checking and he heard allegations they were a pedophile who escaped justice.
If a pedophile raped and murdered your kid, what would you want to do to that person?
In that case, I would be an individual seeking revenge for something that I have definitive proof of (I'm assuming you mean they did it in front of me), this is a different case than a vigilante purposefully dealing out justice by killing people he thinks are wrong.
And what if the police don't help and are corrupted? Look i get it, no one should kill anyone but killing unfortunately is part of life. Some people get a pat on the wrist and still do the same thing. And they know they can get away with it and they know people will defene them saying "he needs a trial" or "you're no one to kill anyone" and they can relax and chill knowing they'll be protected. Sorry but some people do deserve to die and i don't follow god amendments either "thou shall not kill"
Okay look, let's look at it another way. Say one day you get wrongly arrested for something really really horrible, like the rape and murder of a child. there's a ton of circumstantial evidence, and the little the child remembers about their attacker does match up with you, however there's nothing really definitive that can be admitted as evidence in court. You get a judge widely known/suspected to be corrupt. You go to trial in a widely publicized court trial, and wind up being acquitted. There are lots of rumors flying around about there being foul play/bribery involved to get some of the evidence thrown out. Obviously none of them are true, you didn't do anything, and the evidence was just bad evidence that needed to get thrown out, but you know how rumors are.So you have someone with a bunch of circumstantial evidence for a truly terrible crime against them, a judge widely suspected to be corrupt, and rumors of bribery. Then the guy walksIs the father of the child you were accused of assaulting morally justified in putting a bullet in your brain?
I need to know information and confirmation. You know like the military does before taking someone out. If said person has snuff films of them killing or raping someone and showing their face, i think that's enough evidence i need to put them down
Is it? Will you always require an exacting level of evidence? What is your standard for evidence? Will you always double check to make sure you're not taking out someone with a similar face from a badly shot film? Who is holding you accountable? What crimes deserve death? Just the "really bad" ones? What does that mean? Will you always and forever target the samecriminals, or, being a fallible human, might you start to cast a wider net, killing for less severe crimes? Without any system of checks and balances, it becomes impossible to ensure accountability. You might think you would always ensure to get "enough evidence" to make sure you never kill an innocent man. Youd be one man working alone with limited resources/info. It's impossible to really be sure. The amount of people that are caught on video widely available doing something horrific and then walk is infestimably small, youd be taking out like 2 people, and then what? You walk away? You dont pursue your own brand of justice for criminals with maybe marginally less evidence that walked?
It's not that hard to identify someone. You make it sound like it's always a long process. Sometimes it's easier to identify someone sooner than we think. If the person is actually confirmed to be said person, then i see no problem with someone taking them out
And that right there is why vigilantes like you were describing are morally wrong. They would have to be ao arrogant as to think it's always easy to identify people worthy of death, and that they are better than the justice system at determining guilt, so much so that they would never take out an innocent man
Well im also not going to be defending sick individuals that don't deserve any life. These kind of people have no problem taking life but to take there's, is a big problem
yes, it is a problem, because to say that any person can lose their right to a fair trial and it be morally okay, is to functionally take away the right to a fair trial from everyone.
Let's agree to disagree ma'am
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I would take a job where I would do the exterminating. they would have to be 100% guilty without doubt. an eye for an eye and I expect to be hunted down if I commited the same crimes. it would be a crazy world but a safer one at that.
Oh i seen that show and although he was a bit off, i always thought he was a vigilante
Court system is broken. A man selling weed gets years or life yet a pedophile can be walking out on the streets after serving little time
I don't know what you're talking about specifically, maybe there's a case where that did happen? But pedophiles get 20years+. Weed gets you 6 months in jail. I also don't know what country you're from.
The U. S and compared to people who sell weed and serve time, 20 years is rather small compared to the number of years people who sell weed or have their own plant get
Do you like smoking weed? is that whats going on? Because the law is pretty harsh on pedophiles. Except for female ones, they get a slap on the wrist for whatever reason.
Don't smoke very often but i use weed as an example against pedophiles. The justice system is very lay back when it comes to pedophiles regardless male or female
Thats just not true.
He does so because he was tortured before being killed by the Joker as a teenager. When he was resurrected, he decided to inflict pain onto those who really deserve it
Well. I guess those who inflict torture deserve to experience it.
Even if they raped and killed your own kid?
Even if they did that. We have laws to deal with them, and prisons to send them to. Itis not up to you to indulge your vengeance fantasies by taking the law into your own hands. If you do, you go to prison with them.
Change it to Isis and id have no problem with that once so ever
I would love to but I can't edit it
Society has agreed on that.
@ChefPapiChulo Society is full of hypocrisy
Society has its flaws. But on this particular thing, society has it right.
@ChefPapiChulo yeah this is unambiguous. All murder is wrong. No person or government should murder anyone. Of course horrible people should be separated from society, for their whole lives if needed, but never murdered.