Is Vigilantism ALWAYS Wrong?

I don't think it's always wrong, no.

Then again, whether or not it's right or not is a matter of perspective.
 
Not always. Our legal system is severely flawed, and I think most of us realize it, particularly when the small parts of it that impact our individual existence reveal the flaws to us.

We have laws, but we have a government that chooses to enforce them or not for political reasons, in large part a result of the 60s mentality that currently prevails.

But, at least we can still shoot an armed intruder in our home, unlike the folks in the UK.
 
It can be the right - or perhaps I should say, least wrong - thing for you to do. The law is not always right, nor does it always bear moral authority with it.

However, you should always be willing to stand up and take your lumps for it afterwards (e.g., the legal consequences of your vigilante action) unless "doing the right thing" requires you to complete a successful revolution.
 
^^I'm not asking so much about vigilantism that simply breaks the law, but vigilantism that enforces a law the authorities won't. For example, a riot the police refuse to disperse.
 
The Question said:
^^I'm not asking so much about vigilantism that simply breaks the law, but vigilantism that enforces a law the authorities won't.
Click to expand...
Vigilantism is always about enforcing a law the authorities won't.

Once in a while it's not a law the authorities recognize (you may choose to call it "higher law" while demanding an eye for an eye); sometimes it's a corruption issue; sometimes it's simply a matter of ability, or a question of due process seeming too slow.
 
Okay, well let's focus on the due process question. If a violent crime is witnessed while in progress, where does due process come in when responding to the attacker, specifically in a situation where the authorities cannot or will not intervene effectively?
 
The Question said:
Okay, well let's focus on the due process question. If a violent crime is witnessed while in progress, where does due process come in when responding to the attacker, specifically in a situation where the authorities cannot or will not intervene effectively?
Click to expand...
If you're asking about due process, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really say what due process would say is asy particular case. I do know the law as enforced is very particular about when you can mess with someone else, and full of odd quirks. I have no idea what amount of trouble you could get in.

In cases where there truly is a violent crime in progress which only immediate action can stop (e.g., a mugging or rape, as opposed to such non-violent activities as crossing a border, cursing in front of small children, streaking, being publicly drunk, etc) I believe the law permits direct intervention, i.e., "vigilantism" in the sense of taking the law into your own hand.

However, that's a question of legal advice... not really moral advice anymore.

I've already said to hang the law if the law's wrong, which it can be. If you're questioning the legal consequences of your action as making your act of vigilantism the right or wrong thing to do, you shouldn't be doing it. I prefer civil disobedience be a matter of principle, not cost-benefit analysis, as much as possible.
 
Number_6 said:
We have laws, but we have a government that chooses to enforce them or not for political reasons, in large part a result of the 60s mentality that currently prevails.
Click to expand...
Everything you see as wrong with America today caanot be attributed to "the 60s mentality". If you had your way, the hippies of the 1960's are singlehandedly responsible for: the crappy education system, the crappy judicial system, and everything else you might think of.

According to you, hippies wielded more power, and produced more change, than every president since Kennedy.

Huh...
 
Friday said:
Everything you see as wrong with America today caanot be attributed to "the 60s mentality". If you had your way, the hippies of the 1960's are singlehandedly responsible for: the crappy education system, the crappy judicial system, and everything else you might think of.

According to you, hippies wielded more power, and produced more change, than every president since Kennedy.
Click to expand...

The hippies of the 60s became the politicians of the 90s.
 
To TQ: So did members of the Young Republicans Club.

Both sides are the politicians running the country today.

Hippies aren't responsible for all of America's ills.
 
The Question said:
^^I never said they were. If nothing else, they severely aggravated the greenhouse effect, though. :(
Click to expand...
No, you never did.

But Number_6 seems to have a stick up his ass as far as villifying the hippie movement.

Juat sayin'....
 
Friday said:
No, you never did.

But Number_6 seems to have a stick up his ass as far as villifying the hippie movement.

Juat sayin'....
Click to expand...

Can't see a lot of good that came from them that didn't bring a fair heap of harm with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top