There has been a rise in vigilantes in Mexico, the UK, and the Philippines. I've also heard rumors of a rising in the US. Maybe criminals are becoming less afraid of law enforcement? And maybe that's why there is a rise. Anyhow, Is it a good or thing? Even though they're breaking the law.
You know, this thread reminds me of a book called According to the Evidence by Henry Cecil (who was an English Judge writing about the flaws in the law).
Its basically about a murderer being killed, and that murderer's killer being charged with murder for killing the murderer. He eventually gets acquitted, but the question is still there: do you bring someone who does society good to court?
do you bring someone who does society good to court?
When it's a person who is constantly killing people and continuing to do so who gets killed, then the person who killed that killer.... Gosh thats confusing, ok I'll rewrite it.
When: Person 1 = known serial killer/ mass murderer who is still killing others. Person 2 = vigilante who kills person 1 only for the purpose of stopping the killings. Then it should be considered justified, the community will see person 2 as a hero.
When: Person 1 = guy who panicked and shot/killed someone, possibly even by accident. Person 2 = vigilante who kills person 1 for revenge/"justice". Then it should be considered unlawful, the community will see person 2 as a violent threat.
do you bring someone who does society good to court?
Trying the executioner.
Yeah, it's that pointless.
However, only the state can kill legally. Under the law, yes, you bring him to court and punish to the maximum extent of the law just like any other criminal. If what he did is right or not doesn't matter, it's the law written in stone that does.
If a man could just murder other uncaught murderers unabated, what would stop him from becoming nothing more than a serial killer? What if he killed for pleasure or monetary gain, as opposed to 'justice'?
Vigilantes are bad judicially, they always are. They deprive the state of power and trust of the people, two things they cannot see happen. These laws do serve a very real purpose, however: if one person can just get away with murder, then they all can. If anyone could just kill for some random perceived injustice, murder, kidnapping, what have you, it would eventually trickle to petty things, and spiral out of control. We would have a very different society today, and it is indeed why courts were set up in the first place.
The state is a fair and resolute vigilante, as the people are too fickle and ignorant to enforce proper law.
Vigilantism is not a good thing. Any rouge person or group going around killing people for wrongs done isn't justice. Additionally, there is a chance the person or group will start killing people for petty crimes. There are many ways vigilantism can go out of hand and it becomes more harmful than beneficial to a society.
They deprive the state of power and trust of the people, two things they cannot see happen.
What about when it's what the people want, like if a killer, who confessed completely and had mountains of evidence against him (20+ witnesses, dozens of bodies found on his property, literally blood on his hands) and the only reason he wasn't convicted was due to a legal error by one of the prosecutors causing a mistrial, acquitting him of all charges?
The reason why it's illegal is that people can be rash. You think a person would look for probable cause and all that crap after someone just killed their spouse or partener. Some people are too rash and find it easy to get retribution the moment they can accuse another indiviual. Again in some circumstances it is good like indiviuals trying to stop the vandalism and looting in the UK, but there are reasons for it being illegal.
