Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Boondock Saints/

Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2010 7:49:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I gave this topic two days in society, so I'm moving it here:

I recently saw this movie again on the IFC and I think that it deals with an issue that is a bit gray on the moral color scale. This is the issue of vigilantism. The entire premise of this movie is that two brothers kill bad people. This is obviously illegal, but these brothers know that these people have done bad things, mostly murder and mob activity. Should the fact that these people's illegal activity can't be proven mean that they shouldn't be punished, or that those that do the illegal punishment be punished themselves?
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2010 11:54:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Rule of Force vs. Rule of Law.

Unless the police and judiciary are corrupt there is little justification for vigilantism.

Of course it can be argued that some wars are simply vigilantism on a larger scale. :P
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2010 10:43:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/10/2010 11:54:55 PM, Puck wrote:
Rule of Force vs. Rule of Law.

Unless the police and judiciary are corrupt there is little justification for vigilantism.

Of course it can be argued that some wars are simply vigilantism on a larger scale. :P

This doesn't really answer the question. It was not about whether not vigilantism is justified, it was about whether or not those who's heinous illegal activity can't be proven still deserve the punishment dealt to them by said vigilante. It also asks whether or not said vigilante should be punished.

If this turns into a full blown discussion I don't want it to be about the law, but whether or not these actions truly deserve condemnation. I believe that the specific actions I mentioned do not, but it still needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Such as did the vigilante mete out an unofficial punishment that was proportional to what is deserved by the crime that was committed but can not be proven in a court of law.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Clockwork
Posts: 349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2010 12:06:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Should the fact that these people's illegal activity can't be proven mean that they shouldn't be punished

Would you like someone to assault/kill you because they believed you did something illegal?
Felonial Disenfranchisement: http://www.debate.org...
Poverty v. Environmental Protection: http://www.debate.org...
On God and Free Will: http://www.debate.org...
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2010 12:45:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/11/2010 12:06:06 PM, Clockwork wrote:
Should the fact that these people's illegal activity can't be proven mean that they shouldn't be punished

Would you like someone to assault/kill you because they believed you did something illegal?

The issue is not that said person did not do something illegal, it is that in the eyes of the law the illegal activity can not be proven. It would be like if a person that witnessed a murder killed said murderer. Just because something can not be proven in the eyes of the law does not mean that it did not happen.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2010 2:16:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think that illegal acts can be morally just, though they should still be prosecuted.

If someone ought to be taken out, and the government's just not doin the job...

I think you'd be morally justified to do it.

Now... who decide's "ought"?? well the government's set up (rightfully so, I think) to give an operative standard, but I certainly have my own Idea.

One should "respect" for the Rule of Law up to a point, b/c it does ensure some stable/regular dealing of "Justice".

But if it can't or won't deal "Justice" on a case, then I think the moral justification is there to break the law. (though any illegal activities should be prosecuted so long as they're illegal; for the sake of the system)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2010 3:05:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
One negative things about vigilatism is that it escalates in alot of cases. However I am strongly for it. If I see someone getting robbed or jump, hell yeah Ima go help them out.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2010 5:24:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/11/2010 10:43:37 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 3/10/2010 11:54:55 PM, Puck wrote:
Rule of Force vs. Rule of Law.

Unless the police and judiciary are corrupt there is little justification for vigilantism.

Of course it can be argued that some wars are simply vigilantism on a larger scale. :P

This doesn't really answer the question. It was not about whether not vigilantism is justified, it was about whether or not those who's heinous illegal activity can't be proven still deserve the punishment dealt to them by said vigilante. It also asks whether or not said vigilante should be punished.

If this turns into a full blown discussion I don't want it to be about the law, but whether or not these actions truly deserve condemnation. I believe that the specific actions I mentioned do not, but it still needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Such as did the vigilante mete out an unofficial punishment that was proportional to what is deserved by the crime that was committed but can not be proven in a court of law.

So how does a vigilante have access to evidence the police do not, that is so valid as an indicator of proof but precludes the legal system from using? Doesn't really work.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2010 5:24:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/11/2010 3:05:06 PM, philosphical wrote:
One negative things about vigilatism is that it escalates in alot of cases. However I am strongly for it. If I see someone getting robbed or jump, hell yeah Ima go help them out.

That's not vigilantism. :P
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2010 6:07:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
///So how does a vigilante have access to evidence the police do not, that is so valid as an indicator of proof but precludes the legal system from using? Doesn't really work.///

I mentioned being a witness to the crime. It is no secret that many criminals can not be pursued by the authorities because there is not enough evidence to get a conviction. This basically means that the cops know that certain people are criminals but don't have proof. The main members in this category would be known gang and mafia members.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2010 9:59:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/11/2010 10:43:37 AM, Korashk wrote:

This doesn't really answer the question. It was not about whether not vigilantism is justified, it was about whether or not those who's heinous illegal activity can't be proven still deserve the punishment dealt to them by said vigilante. It also asks whether or not said vigilante should be punished.

IOW: is the existence of crimes that cannot be prosecuted by the existing justice system adequate reason for some individuals to take it upon themselves to "prosecute" said crimes. and, further, should the justice system consider the actions of those vigilantes crimes.

IOW: is vigilantism justified. lol.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...