Does an individual ever have the moral responsibility to take the law into their own hands?

Asked by: yetifivepecks
  • Small claims court.

    I've been defraud three times by contractors in the state of wasHong ton. And all three times I received a judgment and all three times I never got paid. Now it's happened again with a person I did all the proper research on and found nothing wrong. So now I'm going to kill him.

  • I wouldnt say obligated but its the right thing to do in a lot of cases

    Often times people find themselves in situations wear if they call the cops the cops are just going to be too late. In these instances i say its appropriate to take the law into your own hands. The only reason we let the judicial system take care of things is because if we didnt then there would be no way of them knowing who was in the wrong. But in some situations you know the bad guy is in the wrong so you dont need to let him be tried.

  • ABSOLUTELY, and society would more or less agree.

    Anybody who loves and looks up to superheroes but feels like someone who stops a criminal and either turns them into the police or if they're dealing with a monstrous person, ends their threat, should be punished, is a hypocrite. That is all I feel the need to say. Bye.

  • There are times when the established systems benefit a guilty individual...

    This is a difficult subject for me to address objectively, because my emotional response is immediately "yes". I have seen many instances of court cases in which a painfully guilty party goes free because they and their lawyer played a better game. Cases like this make a mockery of the justice system (specifically addressing America). In most such cases, I am for socio-political reform, rather than vigilantism. However, I believe that in certain situations, there is a moral imperative to protect those who cannot protect themselves. For example: What if a wealth and/or famous man was molesting children, or even his own child, but their skillful legal team and affluence kept them from any real consequences? At this point, I would argue that someone who had knowledge of these abuses would be obligated to seek out evidence ((directly or indirectly) to convict the man. If this failed, a relative could arguably have the moral imperative to take the child from him, legally or no, pursuing legal means at a later time.
    I understand that this can be a slippery slope, as it can sometimes be difficult to agree when a situation would warrant such measures. However, I still stand by my opinion for the time being.

  • Praise the Lord above

    You should always submit yourself to the lord above. The higher authorities have complete power over you. Succumbing to Satan is the ONLY consequence to breaking the law. Faith will protect you and no other human being has the obligation to help you in any situation... If they do consequences will follow

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.