Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Vigilante justice in action.

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:37:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've personally always been an advocate of vigilante justice myself, and at one point almost took some myself. Somebody supposedly did something messed up to one of my relatives and the police didn't arrest the guy. So I did my own research and determined I didn't have enough evidence of his crime to justify murdering him in my mind. It's a shame, the alligators would've enjoyed that snack in the Everglades.

Here is an article with footage of some homeowners taking out vigilante justice on a thief who broke into their house. Did the thieves go too far or not far enough when they beat him with sticks? Also other thoughts on vigilante justice is welcome.

http://www.stlucianewsonline.com...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 12:21:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is a pretty good illustration of the problems I have with vigilante justice: the punishment is based on emotion and probably doesn't fit the crime. Is extended physical pain (torture, basically) really a justified punishment for a nonviolent crime? No doubt the people who caught the guy are angry with him and acting on that frustration rather than any thought towards what should be done to reform the thief and ultimately prevent future crime. Vigilante justice is a case-by-case view of crime. Reducing crime requires a systematic approach with a perspective that includes more than immediate consequences.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,076
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 3:22:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 12:21:39 AM, Burzmali wrote:
This is a pretty good illustration of the problems I have with vigilante justice: the punishment is based on emotion and probably doesn't fit the crime. Is extended physical pain (torture, basically) really a justified punishment for a nonviolent crime? No doubt the people who caught the guy are angry with him and acting on that frustration rather than any thought towards what should be done to reform the thief and ultimately prevent future crime. Vigilante justice is a case-by-case view of crime. Reducing crime requires a systematic approach with a perspective that includes more than immediate consequences.

Because of this, vigilante justice is best carried out by third party individuals who have no emotional attachment to the victims and was not personally affected by the crime in question. Such a person is less likely to let their emotions get the best of them whenever going after the criminal and such a person would as a result be more proportional when dealing out punishment.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 11:24:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 12:21:39 AM, Burzmali wrote:
This is a pretty good illustration of the problems I have with vigilante justice: the punishment is based on emotion and probably doesn't fit the crime. Is extended physical pain (torture, basically) really a justified punishment for a nonviolent crime? No doubt the people who caught the guy are angry with him and acting on that frustration rather than any thought towards what should be done to reform the thief and ultimately prevent future crime. Vigilante justice is a case-by-case view of crime. Reducing crime requires a systematic approach with a perspective that includes more than immediate consequences.

I don't know. I'd think getting beat that badly would do more to prevent the guy from doing that nonsense in the future than spending a few hours in jail would.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 11:26:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 3:22:44 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/13/2015 12:21:39 AM, Burzmali wrote:
This is a pretty good illustration of the problems I have with vigilante justice: the punishment is based on emotion and probably doesn't fit the crime. Is extended physical pain (torture, basically) really a justified punishment for a nonviolent crime? No doubt the people who caught the guy are angry with him and acting on that frustration rather than any thought towards what should be done to reform the thief and ultimately prevent future crime. Vigilante justice is a case-by-case view of crime. Reducing crime requires a systematic approach with a perspective that includes more than immediate consequences.

Because of this, vigilante justice is best carried out by third party individuals who have no emotional attachment to the victims and was not personally affected by the crime in question. Such a person is less likely to let their emotions get the best of them whenever going after the criminal and such a person would as a result be more proportional when dealing out punishment.

I wouldn't be proportional. People are less likely to steal in the future if you chop off their hand. Or less likely to rape, if you chop off their penis. Disproportionate punishment seems like it would be the most effective type of punishment.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 3:13:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 11:26:30 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 3:22:44 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/13/2015 12:21:39 AM, Burzmali wrote:
This is a pretty good illustration of the problems I have with vigilante justice: the punishment is based on emotion and probably doesn't fit the crime. Is extended physical pain (torture, basically) really a justified punishment for a nonviolent crime? No doubt the people who caught the guy are angry with him and acting on that frustration rather than any thought towards what should be done to reform the thief and ultimately prevent future crime. Vigilante justice is a case-by-case view of crime. Reducing crime requires a systematic approach with a perspective that includes more than immediate consequences.

Because of this, vigilante justice is best carried out by third party individuals who have no emotional attachment to the victims and was not personally affected by the crime in question. Such a person is less likely to let their emotions get the best of them whenever going after the criminal and such a person would as a result be more proportional when dealing out punishment.

I wouldn't be proportional. People are less likely to steal in the future if you chop off their hand. Or less likely to rape, if you chop off their penis. Disproportionate punishment seems like it would be the most effective type of punishment.

Irreversible, though. If you get the wrong dude, or the crime is accessory to a larger crime, you have a circumstance that is hard to reverse and punishment that is hard to decide upon.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 4:38:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 11:24:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 12:21:39 AM, Burzmali wrote:
This is a pretty good illustration of the problems I have with vigilante justice: the punishment is based on emotion and probably doesn't fit the crime. Is extended physical pain (torture, basically) really a justified punishment for a nonviolent crime? No doubt the people who caught the guy are angry with him and acting on that frustration rather than any thought towards what should be done to reform the thief and ultimately prevent future crime. Vigilante justice is a case-by-case view of crime. Reducing crime requires a systematic approach with a perspective that includes more than immediate consequences.

I don't know. I'd think getting beat that badly would do more to prevent the guy from doing that nonsense in the future than spending a few hours in jail would.

Possibly, or it might just escalate the situation and next time he'll make sure he has a couple of friends with him. Violence tends to lead to more violence.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 5:17:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 3:13:22 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/13/2015 11:26:30 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 3:22:44 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/13/2015 12:21:39 AM, Burzmali wrote:
This is a pretty good illustration of the problems I have with vigilante justice: the punishment is based on emotion and probably doesn't fit the crime. Is extended physical pain (torture, basically) really a justified punishment for a nonviolent crime? No doubt the people who caught the guy are angry with him and acting on that frustration rather than any thought towards what should be done to reform the thief and ultimately prevent future crime. Vigilante justice is a case-by-case view of crime. Reducing crime requires a systematic approach with a perspective that includes more than immediate consequences.

Because of this, vigilante justice is best carried out by third party individuals who have no emotional attachment to the victims and was not personally affected by the crime in question. Such a person is less likely to let their emotions get the best of them whenever going after the criminal and such a person would as a result be more proportional when dealing out punishment.

I wouldn't be proportional. People are less likely to steal in the future if you chop off their hand. Or less likely to rape, if you chop off their penis. Disproportionate punishment seems like it would be the most effective type of punishment.

Irreversible, though. If you get the wrong dude, or the crime is accessory to a larger crime, you have a circumstance that is hard to reverse and punishment that is hard to decide upon.

You raise a good point.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 5:18:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 4:38:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/13/2015 11:24:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 12:21:39 AM, Burzmali wrote:
This is a pretty good illustration of the problems I have with vigilante justice: the punishment is based on emotion and probably doesn't fit the crime. Is extended physical pain (torture, basically) really a justified punishment for a nonviolent crime? No doubt the people who caught the guy are angry with him and acting on that frustration rather than any thought towards what should be done to reform the thief and ultimately prevent future crime. Vigilante justice is a case-by-case view of crime. Reducing crime requires a systematic approach with a perspective that includes more than immediate consequences.

I don't know. I'd think getting beat that badly would do more to prevent the guy from doing that nonsense in the future than spending a few hours in jail would.

Possibly, or it might just escalate the situation and next time he'll make sure he has a couple of friends with him. Violence tends to lead to more violence.

If violence leads to more violence, why intervene at all. The state when they arrest that guy are technically using an act f violence to do so. If it's escalating the situation, should arrests not happen?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 10:54:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 5:18:54 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 4:38:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/13/2015 11:24:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 12:21:39 AM, Burzmali wrote:
This is a pretty good illustration of the problems I have with vigilante justice: the punishment is based on emotion and probably doesn't fit the crime. Is extended physical pain (torture, basically) really a justified punishment for a nonviolent crime? No doubt the people who caught the guy are angry with him and acting on that frustration rather than any thought towards what should be done to reform the thief and ultimately prevent future crime. Vigilante justice is a case-by-case view of crime. Reducing crime requires a systematic approach with a perspective that includes more than immediate consequences.

I don't know. I'd think getting beat that badly would do more to prevent the guy from doing that nonsense in the future than spending a few hours in jail would.

Possibly, or it might just escalate the situation and next time he'll make sure he has a couple of friends with him. Violence tends to lead to more violence.

If violence leads to more violence, why intervene at all. The state when they arrest that guy are technically using an act f violence to do so. If it's escalating the situation, should arrests not happen?

Of course a criminal still needs to be apprehended. There is a clear difference between being arrested by a representative of the justice system versus being tortured by the people you were trying to steal from.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 11:05:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/13/2015 5:18:54 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 4:38:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/13/2015 11:24:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 12:21:39 AM, Burzmali wrote:
This is a pretty good illustration of the problems I have with vigilante justice: the punishment is based on emotion and probably doesn't fit the crime. Is extended physical pain (torture, basically) really a justified punishment for a nonviolent crime? No doubt the people who caught the guy are angry with him and acting on that frustration rather than any thought towards what should be done to reform the thief and ultimately prevent future crime. Vigilante justice is a case-by-case view of crime. Reducing crime requires a systematic approach with a perspective that includes more than immediate consequences.

I don't know. I'd think getting beat that badly would do more to prevent the guy from doing that nonsense in the future than spending a few hours in jail would.

Possibly, or it might just escalate the situation and next time he'll make sure he has a couple of friends with him. Violence tends to lead to more violence.

If violence leads to more violence, why intervene at all. The state when they arrest that guy are technically using an act f violence to do so. If it's escalating the situation, should arrests not happen?

Of course a criminal still needs to be apprehended. There is a clear difference between being arrested by a representative of the justice system versus being tortured by the people you were trying to steal from.

I agree, but I was hoping you'd go through the trouble of explaining why.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 12:06:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 11:05:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/13/2015 5:18:54 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 4:38:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/13/2015 11:24:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 12:21:39 AM, Burzmali wrote:
This is a pretty good illustration of the problems I have with vigilante justice: the punishment is based on emotion and probably doesn't fit the crime. Is extended physical pain (torture, basically) really a justified punishment for a nonviolent crime? No doubt the people who caught the guy are angry with him and acting on that frustration rather than any thought towards what should be done to reform the thief and ultimately prevent future crime. Vigilante justice is a case-by-case view of crime. Reducing crime requires a systematic approach with a perspective that includes more than immediate consequences.

I don't know. I'd think getting beat that badly would do more to prevent the guy from doing that nonsense in the future than spending a few hours in jail would.

Possibly, or it might just escalate the situation and next time he'll make sure he has a couple of friends with him. Violence tends to lead to more violence.

If violence leads to more violence, why intervene at all. The state when they arrest that guy are technically using an act f violence to do so. If it's escalating the situation, should arrests not happen?

Of course a criminal still needs to be apprehended. There is a clear difference between being arrested by a representative of the justice system versus being tortured by the people you were trying to steal from.

I agree, but I was hoping you'd go through the trouble of explaining why.

What's the point of explaining it if you already agree?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 12:22:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 12:06:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/13/2015 11:05:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:54:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/13/2015 5:18:54 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 4:38:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/13/2015 11:24:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/13/2015 12:21:39 AM, Burzmali wrote:
This is a pretty good illustration of the problems I have with vigilante justice: the punishment is based on emotion and probably doesn't fit the crime. Is extended physical pain (torture, basically) really a justified punishment for a nonviolent crime? No doubt the people who caught the guy are angry with him and acting on that frustration rather than any thought towards what should be done to reform the thief and ultimately prevent future crime. Vigilante justice is a case-by-case view of crime. Reducing crime requires a systematic approach with a perspective that includes more than immediate consequences.

I don't know. I'd think getting beat that badly would do more to prevent the guy from doing that nonsense in the future than spending a few hours in jail would.

Possibly, or it might just escalate the situation and next time he'll make sure he has a couple of friends with him. Violence tends to lead to more violence.

If violence leads to more violence, why intervene at all. The state when they arrest that guy are technically using an act f violence to do so. If it's escalating the situation, should arrests not happen?

Of course a criminal still needs to be apprehended. There is a clear difference between being arrested by a representative of the justice system versus being tortured by the people you were trying to steal from.

I agree, but I was hoping you'd go through the trouble of explaining why.

What's the point of explaining it if you already agree?

So other people can debate the premises. I want to see the pro's and cons
YYW
Posts: 36,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 1:57:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have mixed feelings about vigilante justice. I can understand why the family members of someone who was raped or murdered would want to exact their revenge. I might be able to look the other way about it, because I understand it, but I couldn't support it. If I was in a position where a member of my family -even if it was a member of my family that I didn't especially like- was hurt by someone else, I would want others to look the other way while I did what I needed to do from the shadows.

I think of the kind of internal "justice" structures that, for example, the Italian mafia had back until the 1970s. That could be classified as vigilantism, in many respects, because it was not state sanctioned. However, if you went out and raped a gang member's sister, you'd be killed as soon as he could find you. That mutual understanding of assured retaliation kept things organized among Italian gangsters. There was a code of honor, and a power structure.

Organized crime, as such, was professional. There was internal and external recognition of gangsters, by gangsters. For example, you never killed a made man, as surely as you didn't go after any member of any made man's family, because you'd get killed. If you killed a made man, other crime families would kill you simply because you broke the rules, or -more realistically- they would find you and bring you to the new head of the family you accosted, and let them do unto you whatever they felt was fitting. The public, politicians and even the police all understood how things worked with them. It was a well ordered system. I also understand retaliating against those who break out of the order of things.

That is all very different, however, than what Wylted posted a video of. If it is true that this young fellow who was tied to a post was caught red-handed by neighbors of the person whose house the individual was breaking into, then what is shown in that video doesn't bother me in principal. I don't like it, but I don't oppose it either. It's, again, the kind of thing I'd prefer to look the other way for.

There are other contexts, though, where I'm going to be more than happy to be an enforcer. Say, for example, you've got a gay kid who is being mercilessly beaten by a gang of homophobes. I'd be happy to personally beat them to a pulp, and I probably would. In the alternative, say that I saw someone in the process of or attempting to rape a girl at a club. I'd get my buddies and we'd probably beat him within inches of his life, before calling the police. Or, say that I saw a parent beating their kid in public.... I'd likely intervene there too.

I'm just not the type to sit around and let stuff happen that shouldn't happen, if I can stop it. There are a lot of people who would prefer to just turn stuff over to the authorities, or wait for someone else to jump in. If the authorities can handle it I'm likely not to get involved. But if there is a closing window of opportunity to act, I'm the type of person who is going to act. I know that if someone was trying to hurt me, or someone I cared about, I'd want them to do exactly what I would do in that situation.

At the same time, I don't want people like George Zimmerman who have all the tact of a swarm of killer bees, and the judgment of a rabid dog out on patrol. That's the risk with supporting vigilante justice... I don't want crazies taking the law into their own hands.
Tsar of DDO
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 2:58:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 1:57:26 AM, YYW wrote:
I have mixed feelings about vigilante justice. I can understand why the family members of someone who was raped or murdered would want to exact their revenge. I might be able to look the other way about it, because I understand it, but I couldn't support it. If I was in a position where a member of my family -even if it was a member of my family that I didn't especially like- was hurt by someone else, I would want others to look the other way while I did what I needed to do from the shadows.

I think of the kind of internal "justice" structures that, for example, the Italian mafia had back until the 1970s. That could be classified as vigilantism, in many respects, because it was not state sanctioned. However, if you went out and raped a gang member's sister, you'd be killed as soon as he could find you. That mutual understanding of assured retaliation kept things organized among Italian gangsters. There was a code of honor, and a power structure.

Organized crime, as such, was professional. There was internal and external recognition of gangsters, by gangsters. For example, you never killed a made man, as surely as you didn't go after any member of any made man's family, because you'd get killed. If you killed a made man, other crime families would kill you simply because you broke the rules, or -more realistically- they would find you and bring you to the new head of the family you accosted, and let them do unto you whatever they felt was fitting. The public, politicians and even the police all understood how things worked with them. It was a well ordered system. I also understand retaliating against those who break out of the order of things.

That is all very different, however, than what Wylted posted a video of. If it is true that this young fellow who was tied to a post was caught red-handed by neighbors of the person whose house the individual was breaking into, then what is shown in that video doesn't bother me in principal. I don't like it, but I don't oppose it either. It's, again, the kind of thing I'd prefer to look the other way for.

There are other contexts, though, where I'm going to be more than happy to be an enforcer. Say, for example, you've got a gay kid who is being mercilessly beaten by a gang of homophobes. I'd be happy to personally beat them to a pulp, and I probably would. In the alternative, say that I saw someone in the process of or attempting to rape a girl at a club. I'd get my buddies and we'd probably beat him within inches of his life, before calling the police. Or, say that I saw a parent beating their kid in public.... I'd likely intervene there too.

I'm just not the type to sit around and let stuff happen that shouldn't happen, if I can stop it. There are a lot of people who would prefer to just turn stuff over to the authorities, or wait for someone else to jump in. If the authorities can handle it I'm likely not to get involved. But if there is a closing window of opportunity to act, I'm the type of person who is going to act. I know that if someone was trying to hurt me, or someone I cared about, I'd want them to do exactly what I would do in that situation.

At the same time, I don't want people like George Zimmerman who have all the tact of a swarm of killer bees, and the judgment of a rabid dog out on patrol. That's the risk with supporting vigilante justice... I don't want crazies taking the law into their own hands.

I think it's important to note that intervening in a crime isn't vigilantism. Police will always tell you to call the authorities and stay out of it, but that's because they want to minimize the number of people involved in a situation and they don't want more people to get hurt. If someone is being attacked and you stop it, that isn't vigilantism. If you see a theft in progress and stop the thief, that isn't vigilantism. Meting out punishment yourself is what crosses the line from good Samaritan to vigilante.