Is vigilante justice ok?

[Anonymous]

This is the sort of thing that occurs when people take the law into their own hands, like the recent killings of the healthcare CEO and of Jordan Neely, where the people doing it thought they were doing the right thing and some others seemed to agree with them afterward. What societal problems if any will this create?

Here are some problems with vigilante justice:

Societies function based on a structured legal system designed to provide fair and impartial justice. Vigilante actions bypass this system and may lead to arbitrary or biased outcomes.

Without proper investigation or due process, there’s a significant risk of targeting innocent people based on incorrect assumptions, rumors, or personal grievances.

Vigilante actions can lead to a cycle of retaliation, increasing violence and instability within communities.

Unlike formal law enforcement or judiciary systems, vigilantes are not held to legal standards of conduct, making it easier for abuses of power to occur.
Erosion of Trust in Institutions: When people resort to vigilante justice, it can undermine public trust in law enforcement and the judiciary, which are essential for maintaining order.

What do you think?

[lightbulb27]

it's a slipper slope. I think people support vigilante justice at times against lower end dangerous criminals (gangs, traffickers, murderers, child abusers, etc..). For thatyou, can watch the Charles Bronson movies.

But there's not many movies like that dealing with executives and corporations and politicians. Executive stiffed you for the bonus you deserived... time to "go postal"? CEO got 20 million from you but failed to produce a drug, but after pumping a product to the market and going public... the product fails trails and CEO makes millions. Machine gun Vivke? That's what he did... eventhough I like Vivek, that's some serious wicked smarts, but bunch of people were screwed! A group of invaders attack your home breaking into garage to steal your posessions and police can do nothing nor will pursue nor apprehend or get back items? Shoot em all on the spot?

its never ok until it's ok and justified, which is sometimes. And the powerful will get away with it... sometimes the lucky, most don't. it's political... e. g. social.

societys temperement will determine the answer.

I wonder if Bin Laden's "justice" was ok? ok some people they say ok, others say no.

it's the knowledge of good and evil...

[Twalli]

Vigilante justice is never okay

[Asker]

Well thank God. At least one person understands this. The rest of the people responding on here almost sounded like a Lynch mob

[jennifer_bloom]

It’s not the smart thing to do but it is forgivable if they had a good excuse for making errors in judgment.

My grandma was racist but that is because a soldier from another country murdered her family member.

My grandma had a forgivable excuse for being racist.

Some people are racist with no forgivable reason for their bad behaviour.

[emeraldsaphire]

There is no difference between "vigilante justice" and "Justice" In both cases you have people taking "the law" into their own hands and hurting people. Just because you can get 12 random people who know nothing about the situation to agree with you does not magically make killing them ok. Plus 90% of the time they don't even do that.

[RavVid]

First there is a case that is some ones sees Person P (erpetuator) about to kill or substantially harm Person V (ictim) than intervention is justified. A good samaritan preventing death or maiming is to be appreciated.

I would expect the US to have the same concept of a citizen's arrest as there is in mine. The concept of an ordinary bloke rendering assistance is embedded into law. If P was threatening and appeared likely to kill then use of deadly force is justified. Just restraint might be intended but it could result in inadvertent death.

You could call such a person a vigilante and you sort of seem to but I would think you misguided. There is a considerable difference to someone responding on the spot to a violent situation and a group of vigilantes enacting punishment after an incident has occurred.

The other exception I would take is that vigilante justice usually occurs when a loss of confidence has occurred already with policing and the judiciary rather than causing the loss of confidence.

Other than that I would agree.

[Syntosi]

I think vigilante justice can be understandable, if not supported, to a certain extent.

If we take the 2nd amendment for example then that is an enshrined American right to vigilante justice. In the event of for example tyranny taking over the US government then it becomes the duty of the people to enact their own form of justice AKA vigilante justice.

Generally speaking its not a GOOD thing but its a REQUIRED thing for certain circumstances. That of course does not mean that vigilante justice should not be punished or that there are no bad implementations of it. However, it serves to resolve an issue that can appear in society that our normal institutions of government can't resolve or at least can't be relied upon to resolve.

[NaultD]

I'll say there is 12 jury of peers for a reason. So no one can unilaterally control and condemn people. So for a law to be justify it takes 12 peers to say we can't accept what happened.

At the same time if 12 peers can say they accept this behavior it's hard to argue against it.

Let's also understand there is a mountain of bias for defense that our government goes out of the way to mitigate for a government of the people by the people reasons.

So our government dealing with crime and jury of peers is damn good at it's job. if a jury of peers accepts a vigilante justice in the United States of America it should be accepted.

[goaded]

AIUI, cases only come to trial after a Grand Jury of citizens agree that there's a case to answer, as well. That's the first (admittedly relatively low) hurdle the government has to clear.

[jshm2]

There is no such thing as "vigilante justice". It's either murder or not. You've just been watching too much Batman bullshit, and it's warped your sense of ideals.

The reason all "superhero's" wear masks, is because they would be sued and tried for murder and worse if identified.

[exitseven]

In some cases it is OK. The courts are failing us at an alarming rate. Criminals are routinely released with little or no punishment only to re-offend. In other cities the police have been either defunded or demoralized and are ineffective.

More and more the public has been challenged to find their own solutions for public safety. The courts just need to get out of the way.

[Asker]

The reason the courts are failing and the reason that to some extent the police are failing is specifically because of the existence of vigilante Justice. You can make sure these things fail at an even faster rate by endorsing and even participating in your own vigilante justice.

[Asker]

What you really meant to say here is the courts are failing to do what you think they should do and what people on the right think they should do. That is not the same thing as actually failing.

[exitseven]

I think letting criminals back out on the street with no cash bail, letting open drug markets exit, allowing homeless encampments on public streets, or letting illegal aliens live in this country. What do you think?

[Asker]

Right. The courts always do this stuff. They are not harsh enough to suit you. Too bad.

[exitseven]

You're right. these people should be locked up and the death penalty should be expanded. We should be looking at how drug dealers are dealt with in countries that do not have big drug problems and maybe do the same thing.

[Asker]

Everything that you advocate in this regard. If it were implemented, we'd make this country a little a bit less livable.

[Surely]

I really don’t want to sit in jail for doing justice that the court system didn’t do. But if someone would do something violent to me or my family. I might be inclined to go with my own justice. Too many Dirty Harry movies!🎥

[Anonymous]

Vigilanteeism is good for when the law doesn't work

I myself have threatened to hook the son of a judge up to a car battery by the balls because he was getting away with raping teenagers, I would have done it but he pissed himself and I wasn't touching that so I left him with the line of I hear anything like this again I'll be back and I'd finish this

An associate had similar happen to his sister and he took the guy to a warehouse and pulled his teeth out with a set of pliers

[Asker]

@anonymous Do you somehow think that taking the law into your own hands and also breaking it is somehow ok? Do you think these stories make you a tough guy, maybe just a stupid one?

[Opinion Owner]

No just doing what was required, in the absence of law, law has to be created by those present, for me that means rapists are punished in the most extreme way possible not given a slap on the wrist or allowed away with the right handshake and a nice drink to the police

[Asker]

Well no it wasn't required at all. You just decided it might be fun to do it and it might make you look like some sort of hero. Did someone appoint you to enforce the law? Somehow I doubt it and with any luck that will never happen at all.

[Kelley1]

It is better than the Government's justice.

[WowGIrl4ever]

It occurs in rural areas a lot. I find it to be more simple then involving anyone

[Asker]

Yes - but is it moral?

[WowGIrl4ever]

Yess

[Asker]

😒😒😒