The Value of Vigilanteism

Is there a point in which it makes sense for civilians to go outside the law?

Can principles be applied to this decision or is it more of a case-by-case basis thing?

And finally, how did this guy get his hands on throwing stars?

For those who can't open the link: it's an article about an incident involving a homeless man who calls himself "Strange." He saw a man strangling a woman and intervened by cutting the man's throat with a throwing star, either by throwing it or by using it like a knife. "Strange" has not been found, the woman seems to be OK, and the guy who got his throat cut is in hospital and expected to survive, at the time of that article's writing.

edited 9th Aug '12 10:37:21 AM by BestOf

1 Yes 2 Principles and case by case are not mutually exclusive 3 Amazon, assuming the story is accurate.

There is a difference between going Vigilante and Intervening in a crime in process you are seeing (for example a mugging). Its a thin line but its there. And in the latter there is a thing like "excessive force". This is a case by case thing.

The other side is the big No. In my opinion those who go out with baseball bats, throwing stars or guns and "hunt" criminals (or alleged criminals) are not better than those they hunt. They go beyond the law to enforce their belief on someone other.

We have laws which are based on justice, while vigilantism will most likely always be heavily jaded by vengeance. Cops follow rules which try their best to prevent that. What stops a vigilante? What stops someone who decides that car-jacking is just as bad as murder. What stops someone who's interpretation for "bringing a criminal to justice" is cutting off his hand.

And in the end, everyone enjoys the presumption of innocence. EVERYONE. If we condone vigilante "justice", if we condone mob "justice" this goes RIGHT out of the window and paves the way into a reign of terror.

Is there a point for civilians to go beyond the law? In the end yes. The law has to be just and all that. But the point I'm drawing for that would not be vigilantism but revolution.

edited 9th Aug '12 11:08:50 AM by 3of4

I think the difference between vigilantes and good citizens is as follows: good citizens interfere with crimes in progress and call the police. Vigilantes actively hunt down criminals, regardless of whether they can prevent more harm from being done.

Vigilante justice may be better than no justice, but as a society we've moved far past the stage where implementing it would be an improvement.

I think it all depends. So long as the results stay positive(no collateral damage, no false victims who were actually innocent) it's ok to turn a blind eye to that sort of thing and call it a success. It's when people like that start operating on gut feelings and not getting facts in the course of their actions, problems occur.

Citizens who actively and successfully pursue crime are a credit to society, I feel.

There's "pursue" and then there's "attempt to single-handedly wipe out". Gimme the guy who passes on tips to his police and neighbours over the jumpy macho jackass with a gun any day.

Like I said, I'm about the results. If the guy who actually takes the physical actions into his own hands can do so responsibly, and with sound judgement, I really don't have hard feelings on that. If you put together a group of, say, ex-military and ex-police folks to run their own private anti-gang program, I'd think that was wonderful.

But at the end of the day good training and discipline is absolutely essential to anything in that vein of activity. People who don't know what they are doing should not be doing that sort of thing.

What do you folks think about vigilantes like these?

I'd argue that most governments are quite well equipped to handle vigilantes - if they break the law, they get arrested and charged. Their motive may be taken into consideration but a crime's still a crime,

edited 9th Aug '12 12:43:21 PM by betaalpha

There is definitely a line here. I hate to bring in superheroes, but the reason Batman gets away with it (both in-universe and from the audience's perspective) is both the code against killing and because Gotham is just that bad. Not to mention he respects the legal system, even though it is corrupt. A couple stories even involve him proving members of his Rogue's Gallery innocent of particular crimes, rather than just take them in anyway.

And then there's also the fact that even if the vigilante is adored by everyone, doesn't do anything morally wrong, etc, his involvement ties the legal system into knots, since it isn't designed to deal with that kind of thing. It's not like in fiction, where everyone just pretends the criminals tied themselves up and left themselves in front of the police station.

Barkey, I'd say that the problem with your stipulations is that the people who are willing to be responsible and thorough in investigating before they act, and are careful to not get the wrong person are most emphatically not the type of person who will decide to become a vigilante. The very fact that they are clearly stepping outside the law will make those people reluctant to do so; while that same fact will attract the hotheads and wannabe tough guys who aren't careful and responsible. To say "Vigilanteism is fine if the vigilantes are careful, thoughtful, and responsible" is about on a par with saying "Frogs wouldn't bump their butts when they jump, if they had wings."

edited 9th Aug '12 12:50:02 PM by Madrugada

"no false victims who were actually innocent" And here I see the prohibitive problem Barkey. How do vigilantes (aside from directly witnessing it) determine someone's guilt? With the police you have due process. What guarantees that you are considered innocent until proven otherwise would you have with vigilantes? How are they accountable for their actions?

Don't get me wrong, a good and well organized Neighborhood watch is probably a great thing in a dangerous surroundings, but only if they stay within the scope of the law.

edited 9th Aug '12 1:51:35 PM by 3of4

An organized group, maybe, but those antifederal militias in the backwoods of the Midwest think they're law-abiding organized groups too.

I like the thought of disciplined volunteer police officers taking the initiative. Wait, maybe not.

I have a feeling that we're talking about different sort of "vigilantism" here. Barkey's version seem to be more of a "non-government agency made of ex-soldiers and ex-police doing police work" whereas everyone else is talking about mob justice.

Well nobody really had an issue with the Boondock Saints so, I guess those Republican Action Against Drugs folks were cool.

@Barkey: If someone's capable of handling weapons and arrests responsibly, and wants to make that their calling, then why aren't they applying to the police academy? :)

Vigilante justice is a violation of the criminal's rights. Citizen's arrest is not, but it's not the same thing.

If a vigilante decides to punish a criminal, as opposed to protecting others or arresting them, that's where they're crossing the line. Punishment is not left up to individuals in our society; it's left up to the justice system.

Dammit Ramidel, thanks for ruining my support for vigilantism.

because they did and have the same reason as Barkley is not working for police now?

@ betaalpha: Yes, that's what I meant. In the eyes of the law, a vigilante is just another criminal. If that criminal started acting like a cop—arresting suspects and throwing them in jail—then no one would know what to do. Of course, real life vigilantes don't act like cops, so treating them like criminals who (in the best case) target other criminals isn't too difficult.

Obviously, they're deathly allergic to paperwork.

Or disagree with a number of laws they're supposed to enforce, as they feel that a large number of laws they'd be required to enforce are unethical/unenforceable/unlawful and that taking the Cincinnatus Oath or equivalent would make justice/public defense more difficult.

edited 9th Aug '12 5:13:19 PM by Deboss

So? If they aren't willing to do the job as it stands, then they need to find something else to do. Vigilantes by definition can't arrest or jail the criminals they apprehend, and a court would throw out any evidence the vigilante acquired, if the DA would even be willing to take the case to trial. Like it or not, you can't work outside the law when it's convenient, and then expect the law to accommodate you when you want it to.

That's an interesting point. However, if someone acted like a cop, ie. they caught a suspect (remembering that person isn't definitely a criminal until he's been sentenced) and handed him into the police station, the cops would make him hang around to give a statement, and might arrest him if there's due cause, eg. he used violence or arrested someone falsely, ie. kidnapped him.

If he started doing this repeatedly he would accumulate minor offenses on his record, much like any troublemaker would, and he'd probably be dealt with in the same way.

This guy sounds a lot like the kind of vigilante you're describing. He's careful to get the police involved ASAP, but he's still getting arrested and they're not really very happy about what he's doing.

edited 9th Aug '12 5:41:59 PM by betaalpha

For me the only time it is ok is when the repsonsible authorities are unable or unwilling due to any number of reasons of protecting the public and adminstering law in any way. This pretty much limits it to extreme situations but of course still has a number of issues.

The vigilante solution should be the last effort when law utterly fails.

betaa:Those are some interesting individuals listed there. I find it silly they bother with what are likely impractical costumes though.

edited 9th Aug '12 6:31:03 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I think that if vigilantism is defined as "crime fighting outside the law" then there is not much to talk about, really. If the police are not arresting vigilants because the law allows the vigilant's actions than the vigilant's no longer a vigilant by definition. If the person is doing something illegal, than of course he should be arrested and charged. That sounds a bit too much of Begging the Question to me.

I think the discussion should more focused on "to what extend should the law force civilians rely on the authorities" and "where should the boundary between vigilantism and lawful citizen neighbourhood watch be".

edited 9th Aug '12 7:01:18 PM by IraTheSquire

I'm basically saying that if it works out ok in the end, I'm ok with it. If a snafu occurs and innocents are harmed, it is not ok.