Vigilanteism

[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.

Given the emotive aspects of child sex-offences and the publics concerns regarding their own children, can vigilante action against people who are, essentially, free be acceptable under any circumstances?

Paul.

[GoshisDead]

Given the emotive aspects of child sex-offences and the publics concerns regarding their own children, can vigilante action against people who are, essentially, free be acceptable under any circumstances?

The vigilante accepts it.

[PaulG]

That is a reasonable answer I suppose. The concept of vigilante action has, i believe, been close to the surface of most cultures. The behaviour of those who try to force someone they believe to be "evil" out of their community would, obviously, be accepted by the vigilantes. In a broader sense though, can such behaviours be seen as an extension of the greater good defense. That is, can such actions be acceptable if there is a society wide belief that no other alternatives are available to supposidly protect a local community?

[GoshisDead]

The law is not so much protection as it is vengeance. Someone must break the law to require punishment. Vigilantism is simply deinstitutionalizing the vengeance. The reason why people consider it unjust i think is because it serves to break down social cohesion, not really that it is wrong to punish someone who should be punished anyway.

[PaulG]

It might break down social cohesion, but it may also build community cohesion. The role of law can also be seen to provide a structure that can help to maintain social structures. Even if a law has not been broken, the deterrence effect can (note that I don't use the work does) impact on how individuals act. But, give a group of individuals a target, and they can become a very cohesive force. Perhaps the major fear in regard to vigilantism is the potential of any individual becoming a target because they have breached the communities code of conduct.

[GoshisDead]

A group of people and a governed society isn't the same thing, once a group of vigilantes usurps the vengeance power of the law they have become separatists. A community's code of conduct is normally in line with whatever the law is, in "democratic" nations and societies. Vigilantism in the example you stated has an offender who probably broke the law, a law that was in line with the societal norms. It was when the law failed to deliver the retribution expected that the idea of vigilantism came to be. The vigilante in this case is doing what the law was designed to do but didn't. The possible injustice is that the offender does not get processed by the law which is also designed to keep innocent people away from vigilantes. So in a way yes, the fear is that someone will do something to you because you broke a community code of ethics, but it is more that one person or a mob, which in practicum is one person, get to decide your fate.

[PaulG]

As I said in the original post, the case was dismissed. Technically, he is now, if not innocent, at least not guilty. I maybe should have been more clear in what I was saying. The example I provided was meant to suggest the idea of mobs reacting to people perceived to be in breach of the community's/society's laws and/or mores. the actions of the vigilantes would have to be seen to be illegal. On the other hand, could they be seen to be moral?

[Didymos Thomas]

Consider the worst case vigilante scenario - an army of sadistic, dogmatic freaks slaughtering everything in their path because the whole world must perish before their souls can be saved. It's eternal justice you're after. They rise up at a predetermined time and take to the streets. Pilots, politicians, military personal; the group has adherents on every level. Six months later, untold numbers dead, the group is finally crushed by an international coalition to restore order in the poor country.

Vigilatneism is an arrogant and brutal occupation. First, you have to assume that you're right and everyone else is wrong, and then you must convince yourself that it's your place to use violence against another person.

I guess we could debate what is considered reasonably moral, but the mix of arrogance and brutality is generally seen as immoral, not to mention arrogance or brutality individually.

[PaulG]

Maybe some clarification is needed here. I don't in any way support the concept of people taking things like this into their own hands. Vigilante groups scare the daylights out of me, but I can see how a community, if not a whole society, could be caught up in the heat of the moment. On another level, could civil disruption against a despotic ruler, be considered as being similar to the example that I have given? Civil disruption could also require people who would otherwise be seen as innocent being harmed.

[Didymos Thomas]

Maybe some clarification is needed here. I don't in any way support the concept of people taking things like this into their own hands. Vigilante groups scare the daylights out of me, but I can see how a community, if not a whole society, could be caught up in the heat of the moment.

Right. People go crazy all of the time. Reminds me of a quote - something about people being sane by themselves, but insane in groups.

On another level, could civil disruption against a despotic ruler, be considered as being similar to the example that I have given?

Sure. Peaceful, civil disobedience sounds like civil disruption. And civil disobedience requires that someone pursue justice. Methods are different - different basic assumptions - but similar.