The Instigator
PatriciaCarroll698
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Vigilante Justice against Child Molesters

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,557 times Debate No: 35296
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

PatriciaCarroll698

Pro

Is justice really served when a child molester gets out of prison after serving only a few years- When his/her victim suffers for a lifetime? ALL Child molesters should be killed!! Instead our legal system releases them back into the public to harm another child. Our government is out to protect the criminals NOT the victims!! I was kidnapped and raped at 11 years old. Not only was I treated like a criminal, but I received no justice either! I am certain I am not the only one out there who has been robbed of justice. So my thoughts are: GO VIGILANTES!! YEA! And GOOD for you. And Thank You for doing what our government wont do!
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Vigilante justice is unjust for multiple reasons, no matter the target. I'll plan on attacking this misinformed idea, rather than the target itself. The choice of child molestors is clear: it is a sick, depraved act that people do. However, we, as citizens in a rational, civil, Western democratic society, are bound by sensibility to following where reason takes us, which means taking an impartial, dispaassionate stance when it comes to initiation of both public policy, and public praising or condemnation of an action.

Vigilantism firstly is wrong because of the misguided nature of those who are allowed to do it. 'Child Molestation' of course seems obvious: it is of course wrong for the sick forty year old men to have sex with eight year olds. And it is: it's horrible. But what about the 19 year old having sex with the 17 year old? Some would say this is still just as wrong: they should be punished. Others will say no. Vigilantism will end up with people with differing classifications for what is moral and what is not, and therefore will spiral out of control.

Secondly, there is an incredibly large problem with vigilantism: to get to it, however, I want you to imagine how the law works. No matter who you are and what you are being accused of, you get the formal equality before the law, and the right to, among other things, know what you are being accused of, and gain a lawyer to defend you. This is necessary for fairness and justice in society. None of this exists under vigilantism. To imagine that we will gain it is utopian. Vigilantism results in people being unfairly punished for a crime that they have not been proven to commit, and therefore is an unjust system.

Finally, vigilantism brings us to a state where people are punished to astounding depths simply because a vigilante believes a crime has taken place. Consider the case of a man who is suffering from a severe mental problem. He is in no control of his actions, and simply cannot be held accountable for the crimes he committed. To punish him for not behaving morally is equivalent to beating up a broken fridge because it does not keep your food warm: it's ridiculous nonsense. Yet vigilantism, due to its rushed, knee-jerk reaction to crime, will punish this individual for simply not recieving the help and rehabilitation he needs.
I have presented three clear cut reasons why we ought to oppose vigilantism in any situation. If any of these stands, the motion itself ought to be rejected. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
PatriciaCarroll698

Pro

I do agree with you in a way. But the fact of the matter is JUSTICE is what you can AFFORD! You have already read my case of being kidnapped and raped. But my nephew David was molested/raped by his stepfather Tim when he was only five years old; this apparently went on for a few years before it was discovered. David spent years in a live in mental hospital. (Places like DePaul, which is known for the mistreatment of kids) David was locked in a small closet several times at that facility! When David was eleven he had a severe panic attack, so the hospital in Texas gave him a shot- Which KILLED him. The child molester Tim only spent five years in prison. He is now out of prison- and I personally saw him surrounded by small male children. My nephew is still dead! His ENTIRE LIFE was TOTAL HELL! It will NEVER be acceptable to KEEP making excuses for these horrible people! It's easy to be against this when you have NEVER been a victim yourself. For those who never receive justice- There is NEVER any closure. The victims suffer for a lifetime and life goes on for the pedophiles! YOU CALL THAT JUSTICE!! LIKE I SAID JUSTICE REALLY IS WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD!!!!!
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Anger does not justify violence. Emotion does not justify killing. Injustice does not justify injustice.


Debate Round No. 2
PatriciaCarroll698

Pro

It is not about anger or vengeance, it is about a justice that our government has failed to give us. It is a PROVEN fact that the more money you have- the less time you receive in jail/prison. Do you even know how criminals that have literally BOUGHT they're freedom. There are some things in this life that really are legally justified. When our government fails to give victims justice and protect others in society from these monsters; Is it not our moral obligation to do something about it? Let me give you another example. If you saw someone in danger- would you stand by and watch? Run scared? Or actually DO SOMETHING about it??
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

What ought we do in the situation of another under attack? Well, ideally we call the police to help. Or, we intervene in order to protect that person, and with that intent only. In no situation do we attack someone because we dislike what they are doing: the role of the judiciary is to give guilt. The saying "That person you made fun of for being fat? She was beaten by her parents as a child." Comes to mind. You have no role rewarding and punishing people in our civilised society, and so vigilantism is wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
lol, you have some issues, pal.
Posted by PatriciaCarroll698 3 years ago
PatriciaCarroll698
Just to let TOTAL IGNORANT MORON"S know- LIKE "WRICHCIRW" who thinks a victim opening her/his mouth and standing up for themselves AND other victim's as well is "Trolling," You REALLY are STUPID! Those of you who want to protect these sick pedophiles and help cover it up are just as sick, if not more so than these monsters! Because you see the problem and yet you do NOTHING! "Either your part of the solution; or your part of the problem!!"
Posted by PatriciaCarroll698 3 years ago
PatriciaCarroll698
For those who still believes our justice system works: Here are just some of the injustices just on my SHORT research on my own. (all can be proven) 1) 7 DWI cases NOT GUILTY
2) 6 DWI cases DISMISSED
3) 2 DWI cases DISMISSED or NOT GUILTY
4) MURDER- reduced to AGGREVATED ASSAULT- 3 year sentence!
5) ATTEMPTED MURDER- reduced to MISDEMEANER ASSAULT- 1 YR probation
6) 3 INTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER- 1) NOT GUILTY 2) NO BILLED BY GRAND JURY 3) 4 PEOPLE KILLED: NO BILLED BY GRAND JURY!!
THE LIST GOES ON AND ON11 I HAVE NOT EVEN STARTED LISTING THE RAPISTS AND PEDOPHILES YET!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by PatriciaCarroll698 3 years ago
PatriciaCarroll698
If a person TRUELY is GUILTY of child molestation-In PROVEN Cases- then I agree with putting them to death. HOWEVER- Not everyone found guilty of child molestation are actually guilty! I personally just found out Friday that a man who has been in prison for the last eight years for child molestation; Is innocent!! I actually spoke to the alleged victim! I did NOT initiate the conversation nor did I expect her to bring it up out of no where! She told me that the NONE of the story that the adult in the house told the police were true! She said that the man NEVER touched her! This man in question, still has prison time to serve for this crime! NO ONE said this was going to be easy! But I believe that with the right Incentive/Persuasion; a person WILL confess their sins/guilt. You just have to apply the right pressure!
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 3 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
"ALL Child molesters should be killed!"
Posted by PatriciaCarroll698 3 years ago
PatriciaCarroll698
Just to let everyone know When I speak of Vigilante Justice; I am not necessarily saying MURDER.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
This was a tough debate to judge and very well argued by Con, I am close to changing my vote, in light of the fact that we can not take the law into our own hands, it doesn't seem right.

However.

The justice system is also not giving justice to those who are victims, it is truly sickening to see how soft paedophiles are treated....

Pro's claim that justice is what you can afford, holds weight to it to some degree, Might is Right in some cases...
For instance the dead celebrity Jimmy Savile has become one of Britain's most prolific paedophiles, only the truth didn't come out until after his death. He was allowed to carry molesting young children and used his fame to attract them....Lots of people knew he was molesting children, but nobody acted. Police turned a blind eye apparently, as well as many of his co stars at the BBC, Apparently it was no secret, but only after his recent death did it hit the headlines....It was covered up because he had power, one newspaper reported that nobody would take him on because he had top lawyer on his side protecting him....

I find it very difficult to judge this debate, but I feel the justice system is failing the victims, and for only this reason, I would prefer that justice be served in way of taking the law into your own hands......

I will award a conduct point to Stephen for actually despising them but wanting the proper justice to be given.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Sigh...after looking at PRO's profile, looks like "it" is one massive troll.

To clarify, I never said that "Familial molestation is experienced by people every where! Implying- Its no big deal/ nothing new!" Instead, I said that making such an assertion is only possible if one is trolling, and hard.

I have blocked PatriciaCarroll698 and sincerely hope the troll gets itself banned from the website.
Posted by watevas808 3 years ago
watevas808
Pro you have my deepest sympathy. Sadly, this is what our country is like. Its what our government and our laws are like. Vigilantes are against the laws, no matter how people think of it as heroic its still against the law. Because of sympathy I side with vigilantes but when arrested and taken to court that's where the governments justice takes place.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
I received a message from PRO that included the following:

"But the fact of the matter is, My Grandfather molested ALL of his granddaughters, including myself. Two of my uncles molested me. One uncle raped my sister when she was nine. The same uncle also raped his own daughter and molested his son. My father is now in prison for allegedly touching his granddaughter. So you see this is not just about me being kidnapped and raped at eleven, and its not just about my nephew. This is about victim's EVERYWHERE!"

Given that none of this is surprising given her debating content, and also given IMHO what seems to be evident trolling (familial experiences apply to people EVERYWHERE?), I will no longer abstain from my original conduct vote.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RedDebater 3 years ago
RedDebater
PatriciaCarroll698Stephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not saying vigilantes are justified in all their aspects of life, but the fact remains that the law does place limits on law enforcement. When we have vigilantes fighting bank robbers there's no justification since the police have complete authority to act upon it. But when someone makes the decision to sexually abuse a child and gets out because the law system was corrupted, then there is simply no rational argument against vigilante justice due to double jeopardy. I'm not saying it has to go to murder, but certainly some form should be considered acceptable by society.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
PatriciaCarroll698Stephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate rests on either taking justice into your own hands or allowing the system to dish out the justice deserving of the crime, Con is wholly against vigilantism, and I see his point, only I have to sympathize more with Pro, who claims that the justice system doesn't work, offering an example of a paedophile who managed to destroy a chuilds life sending him to the brink of insanity and an early death, whilst our justice system freed the paedophile so he can carry on his life with the risk of potential harm o others, as is the case, how horrific to see the man again in the company of small children.... If that was my childs life he destroyed I would gladly take justice into my own hands, I do agree the justice system is to soft on these perverts who try and destroy people lifes....
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
PatriciaCarroll698Stephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. Surprisingly, too close to score one side over another.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
PatriciaCarroll698Stephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not really refute Con's argument or explain how a vigilante could be trusted to make accurate assessments of guilt in a society based on the rule of law.
Vote Placed by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
PatriciaCarroll698Stephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: While I obviously have sympathy for what Pro has been through, they really didn't make a good case here. Conduct was equal, though I was tempted to give it to Con purely because Pro was aggressive and her entire case was essentially an emotionally-charged rant. S/G to Con for fairly obvious reasons, principally the spelling, and not using multiple exclamation and question marks (grammatically incorrect). Arguments to Con for several reasons. Pro's evidence was almost entirely anecdotal and, shocking as it was, it was used in such an emotionally charged way that it is difficult to be judged from a neutral light. Equally I felt that Pro did not respond to Con's criticisms of vigilante justice, and essentially used their own emotions as a defence of their arguments. Pro made a decent case for the lack of punishment being unacceptable but ignored the bulk of Con's arguments. No sources used, though again Pro's evidence was irrelevant as it was anecdotal.