Vigilanteism

[PaulG]

Civil disobedience doesn't necessarily have to be peaceful. Can't it also be the start of civil war?

[Didymos Thomas]

Civil disobedience doesn't necessarily have to be peaceful. Can't it also be the start of civil war?

Right - which is why included the qualifier 'peaceful'. Probably should have used it in the second instance, too. Sorry.

Violent protest, civil disobedience. Sure, why not?

Interestingly, peaceful civil disobedience might also overthrow, or attempt to overthrow, the government - same goal as a civil war.

For me, the matter comes down to method. I don't necessarily have anything against the spirit of vigilanteism - it's the violence I worry abut.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by PaulG

A recent case in Queensland, Australia, involving a child sex-offender who had a case dismissed by a judge due to a belief by the judge that an impartial jury would not be found, weakness in the prosecution case and possibility of time served being at least equal to, if not in excess, of the possible sentence, has resulted in extensive public unrest by people living in the area where the offender has been housed.

Perhaps, as indicated by the italicised portions, he is not only not guilty (prosecution's weak case), but has served time for nothing. Despite the mindless mooing emotionality of the easily manipulable mob, he might be innocent. If he is found in flagrante dilicto, in the act, the prosecution would have a good case. If the case is that weak, tie goes to the runner!

Think of the rape allegations in southern usa accusing a sports team of rape. An overactive prosecutor commited misconduct in order to 'score' a conviction. The mooing mob was ready to hang en all. Oops!...

I don't see the abovementioned case, what i know of it, as cause for people to 'take it into their own hands'.
Other cases, perhaps.
"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted!" -Hassan i Sabbah (old man of the mountain)

[nameless]

Originally Posted by PaulG

A recent case in Queensland, Australia, involving a child sex-offender who had a case dismissed by a judge due to a belief by the judge that an impartial jury would not be found, weakness in the prosecution case and possibility of time served being at least equal to, if not in excess, of the possible sentence, has resulted in extensive public unrest by people living in the area where the offender has been housed.

Perhaps, as indicated by the bolded portions, he is not only not guilty (prosecution's weak case), but has served time for nothing. Despite the mindless mooing emotionality of the easily manipulable mob, he might be innocent. If he is found in flagrante dilicto, in the act, the prosecution would have a good case. If the case is that weak, tie goes to the runner!

Think of the rape allegations in southern usa accusing a sports team of rape. An overactive prosecutor commited misconduct in order to 'score' a conviction. The mooing mob was ready to hang en all. Oops!...

I don't see the abovementioned case, what i know of it, as cause for people to 'take it into their own hands'.
Other cases, perhaps.
"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted!" -Hassan i Sabbah (old man of the mountain)

[Agnapostate]

Vigilantism is an interesting issue. Some have claimed that widespread public action in the form of "criminal justice" that is directly opposed to the actions of the government is profoundly more democratic than the initial government mandates. On the other hand, an isolated few could theoretically take the law into their own hands, which renders the "democratic" argument senseless. Moreover, even were a majority to favor violent action against a supposed criminal, this would seem to fall into the category of tyranny of the majority more than "democracy."

[boagie]

PaulG,

I think the point of it is, is that of the innate power of the civilian population as expressed by Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther king. A high price to pay sometimes for peace, equality and dignity, but what is underlined is that violence begets violence, the old biblical saying an eye for an eye, as Gandhi said, makes the whole world blind. Still, this kind of courage, as demonstrated by these people and their followers, is rare, unfortunately. vigilanteism is unleashed passion, revenge, an eye for an eye, there really is no self control involved.

[PaulG]

Is attempting to take the law into one's own hands a good thing when it's done because you don't like the umpire's decision? Our legal system is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of how one feels about a particular offence or offender, the decisions of the Courts should be final. That is, unless the decision can be proved to be against the best interests of society as a whole. The particular case I cited in the original post has now died a natural death. I have no doubt, however, that similar incidents will occur.

We seem to think that behaviours that are acceptable for "normal" people in the community are not appropriate for those who are considered to be outsiders. Violent actions against those seen as being "dangerous" is acceptable, but don't let the tables be turned.