The legality of vigilantism is fundamentally flawed

Angushjalmur · #1 09-23-2016, 12:34 PM

It is illegal to take the law into one's own hands with the intent of effecting justice based on one's own understanding of right and wrong or the law.

Are laws not set out by the people? Is this to say that the people who have created and endorsed the laws do not understand laws or were unqualified to set forth those laws in the first place?

There are many instances where the current loophole system fails and justice is miscarried. There are many instances when the justice system is muzzled simply because of previous precedent or because of some obscure technicality.

We need the right to take the law into our own hands as a way of balancing the inefficiency and neglect of the established legal system. We need to return to a time when a man could take up his musket and kill those within his community who needed to be killed. Crime rates have increased directly proportionally to the amount of legal sanctions slapped on citizens regarding defending themselves or doing what's right. The nanny state tells us to be helpless and to let the police and courts deal with it, but then fall severely short on their end of the bargain.

That is all.

Sirban · #2 09-23-2016, 05:47 PM

And not a single word was read

AzzarTheGod · #3 09-23-2016, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angushjalmur [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is illegal to take the law into one's own hands with the intent of effecting justice based on one's own understanding of right and wrong or the law.

Are laws not set out by the people? Is this to say that the people who have created and endorsed the laws do not understand laws or were unqualified to set forth those laws in the first place?

There are many instances where the current loophole system fails and justice is miscarried. There are many instances when the justice system is muzzled simply because of previous precedent or because of some obscure technicality.

We need the right to take the law into our own hands as a way of balancing the inefficiency and neglect of the established legal system. We need to return to a time when a man could take up his musket and kill those within his community who needed to be killed. Crime rates have increased directly proportionally to the amount of legal sanctions slapped on citizens regarding defending themselves or doing what's right. The nanny state tells us to be helpless and to let the police and courts deal with it, but then fall severely short on their end of the bargain.

That is all.

Agree but I am not going to share my own story at this time.

I'm with you though.

skarlorn · #4 09-23-2016, 06:32 PM

And what about those drugs too!

JurisDictum · #5 09-23-2016, 07:01 PM

When I was younger I had a theory like this:

We should go really soft on crime...especially vigilantism. That way people could rationally choose to break the law for revenge without it ruining their life.

Now that I'm bit older...seems like that is a good recipe for chaos.

AzzarTheGod · #6 09-23-2016, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When I was younger I had a theory like this:

We should go really soft on crime...especially vigilantism. That way people could rationally choose to break the law for revenge without it ruining their life.

Now that I'm bit older...seems like that is a good recipe for chaos.

Not a true consideration imo, look at Islam and honour killings.

They go soft on them in many countries, and yet honour killing is incredibly rare. (Killing a man who raped your wife, etc.)

I think the risks of going soft on vigilantism are overstated on that basis.

AzzarTheGod · #7 09-23-2016, 07:06 PM

Its one reason I was always so strongly attracted and infatuated with Cosa Nostra and mafia-esque families and other family-oriented concepts similar to Cosa Nostra.

They were as close as you could get to being able to live a pure life, where your grievances could be addressed by the community leader.

Rather than be tyrannized by the system, you had someone to turn to, a resort, if you were a friend of the family.

Very powerful stuff, and it does wonders for the spirit I imagine.

JurisDictum · #8 09-23-2016, 07:15 PM

Basically, I don't believe the state should be in the business of exacting revenge on people for breaking the law. But sometimes it is hard to tell a family of a brutal crime that we are an enlightened society that doesn't do that.

So give them options.

But it just seems like we would eventually get situations like the Montagues vs Capulets in major cities.

And eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Edit: I'm not saying no prisons. I'm saying they should be reform-centered.

AzzarTheGod · #9 09-23-2016, 07:31 PM

I get it. Some people believe in Babylonian law, some believe in Mesopotamian law.

Some believe in Common Law.

Ahldagor · #10 09-23-2016, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I get it. Some people believe in Babylonian law, some believe in Mesopotamian law.

Some believe in Common Law.

Allowance of vigilantism breaks down to subjective enforcements which is a chaotic spiral.

The familial, feudal system you mentioned has been tried, and doesn't work for large groups. Usually leads to tribal like alliances, fights, and infighting.

Governance ain't easy.