I wish I had other types of examples handy, but I don't, so I'll start with this one.
What I want you to think about is regardless of whether the suspect is guilty or not, did everybody involved in the chain of processes do the right thing or not? The cops? The mob?
Me, I don't see anything wrong with putting out pictures of persons of interest, but I would expect that the authorities press charges against those involved in the attack on the suspect nonetheless. It would be nothing less than a heinous lapse of justice were anything else to be the case. Under the circumstances I don't think such actions could ever be justified as there is absolutely no suggestion that the mob acted in any way other than aggressively.
Had the suspect been armed and dangerous and threatened the persons involved, this may have been a different story. But to okay these events on the grounds of the precipitating crime to which the suspect has not yet been proven involved with, is socially irresponsible and sets a worrying precedent.
It all depends, personally unless I thought I couldn't take down the person I wouldn't go to the police for something. If somebody wrongs me I want the satisfaction. Maybe it's just the way it works around my area but I've been bashed before, what you do is tell your parents you got hurt badly play rugby or something, and then you hunt down the dudes that did it and wreck them. It's so much simpler. And more satisfying.
Strop, the link doesn't seem to work, it just says 'bad request', although I'll add my opinion on vigilantism in general.
Justice should be left to the police and the courts. Only in extreely rare cases would I ever condone vigilantism. One such example would be the Athens riots, in which shopkeepers banded together to repel rioters from smashing their shops. An example of anarchic justice. However in most cases, esepcially with regards to rape and child murders, mobs just get too heated up, and would probably kill or maim the suspect.
Whether or not he deserves it is anothe matter entirely. I say, just let them go to jail and get bashed around inside for raping an 11 year old, as is custom.
@firefly: If you are using a mac, I may know why...
I agree with what has been said so far. When you have no other choice and can either face anarchy or vigilantism, I'd take vigilantism. The problem with most vigilantes is that they believe that they are better than they are and as such may quite easily get themselves killed.
Yeah, link is broken because of the word rape in the link text. If you copy it & just write it in over the stars it works fine.
did everybody involved in the chain of processes do the right thing or not? The cops? The mob?
No. There were a few things that were done poorly. I don't agree with the summary beating handed out by the mob - what if he isn't guilty? That needs to be determined before *any* kind of punishment is doled out. As for the cops, I think distributing the photographs was a good idea, but - and I'm not sure as it isn't explicitly indicated in the story; I'm not sure that releasing information on why they're looking for the guy is wise, as that could have prevented the violence.
As a vigilante, you can't be sure if the suspect really DID do the crime. This is why punishments are almost always successful in a court of law. In a modern court case, you have current evidence of the crime presented, while many different parties assess the situation in different perspectives to provide many different "outcomes" of what really happened.
Of course, this is just for murder, if it was just a carnal-knowledge-without-consent crime, all you need to do is just get the victim to tell "who-done-it?" and the majority of the case will get solved, unless if he/she was lying, of course. :P
The only reason I could think of where Vigilantism could ever be deemed necessary is if the nation's judicial system fell into giant disarray and cannot be undone, forcing a state of Anarchy. Then anyone could do whatever the hell they wanted to, without lawful consequences :P
...erm, otherwise, I consider Vigilantism "wrong". They should leave it to the REAL law, because 9.5/10ths of the time, the verdict is correct and the charges are fair. You can always call for a retrial, you just can't call one to prove someone else guilty if he/she has been officially proven NOT-guilty.
Maybe I should have gone with a prosecutor instead of a surgeon?
but then there's the bad type of vigilantism like in the movie Summer of Sam when the mob tries to find the son of sam by themselves
Bad type? I don't recall the mob doing anything particularly harmful other than looking angry and chanting a lot. Then again I saw the film a long while back so I could be wrong. But I agree with you that generally mobs are bad.
If the police can't protect the common, then the man has to take action. You can't just sit back and watch the world deteriorate because the government is too weak to protect you. The hell with government
Vigilantism. It works very well in theory. The thing is, if people are truly howling to be let loose on the world's criminals, how come nobody's ever heard of it happening before. If everybody is yearning to be like Batman, how come we don't hear of multiple arrests of idiots with capes who try to jump off buildings and wrestle with muggers? You see, the thing is, as I said before, vigilantism works well in theory. But then again, so did communism. However, there is a thing about both theories that blows them out of the water once reality kicks in. People are people. As humans, we will never willingly limit our power. Take this as an example. Say your thirty feet away from your brand new car, and this hood starts trying to break in. Your in your garage, and you spot a crowbar lying next to you. You come out, and you grab the guy. He's not happy to see you. I don't know about you, but my inclination would be to pound the piece of shit within an inch of his life. If he were on trial, that would be considered a cruel and unusual punishment, and it wouldn't be legal. Now there you have it. You fought the criminal, but you did it for your own personal satisfaction and for your own reason. You didn't do it for anyone else, and you didn't do it legally, either. Now, assuming this wonderful theory of vigilantism worked, you would just call the cops once you had him nicely trussed up. But you don't. You have power over another human, a human whom you dislike, and your going to do everything in your power to make that person uncomfortable. That was the problem with monarchies, that was the problem with communism, and that is the problem with vigilantism.
I think that's a pretty good (if somewhat verbose) summation of why a lawful society tends to suppress vigilantism- because it violates the most fundamental principles of justice. And that would be a suitable reflection of the concern I expressed in my original post.
