Vigilantism

[vhawk01]

Ok, so reading about Fred Phelps and his group that is protesting and demonstrating at funerals, and then the confrontations he gets into, I'm curious about vigilantism. Framed in the context of these despicable people it seems like people's response is often "If they antagonize people at a funeral they deserve whatever they get." This seems very wrong to me, but maybe I am wrong. I don't see how any sort of verbal antagonizing JUSTIFIES physical violence, and certainly not the extreme that a lot of people seem to deem appropriate in these cases.

But I don't know that vigilantism is wrong in all cases. If I am certain someone did something, and there is an obvious repercussion, it is obviously just for me to make sure that repercussion is doled out, even if I am the only one who is capable. But this is extremely impractical. Its similar to traffic laws, where obviously the best scenario is for the laws not to apply to me, since I can be trusted to make good decisions at all times, but since I can't trust everyone else, and since they wouldn't agree to have the laws not apply to me, I have to accept the second-best solution. Is this the same with vigilantism? Must vigilantism be wrong simply because we can't trust everyone to be right about who they go after?

A little bit of a side topic, hinted at earlier. Do you think that verbal antagonism EVER justifies physical violence? I think there are probably some things that people could say to you that would get you to hit them, but would you think that was JUSTIFIED? And even if so, must we again draw the line between the two as a matter of practicality, since what enrages you might seem trivial to someone else?

[arahant]

Theoretically, i'm pretty much without ethics or morals. It's all gut feel.
I think that 'vigilantism' is one of multiple social mechanisms to influence people to behave properly. I don't see anything wrong with giving someone a pop in the face for verbal behavior. I also don't see anything 'wrong' with people who do things like kill people who molest their children. Of course, it still has to be illegal, or else it would get out of control. I know that may sound contradictory, but in general, vengence serves a social purpose. I look at vigilantes and the court system kind of like a 'checks and balances' system. If the legal system is too deficient in one area, to the extent where people would rather committ a crime themselves to enforce social mores, then vigilantism will occur...

[madnak]

In terms of utility, I think it's good to strike a balance. In terms of ethics, I don't really consider vigilantism a good idea, except in cases of extreme injustice that the court system refuses to solve, or in cases of minor issues where a practical joke will suffice.

Controlled vigilantism is something I can't help but respect, though. It's very rare, of course, but hypothetically a vigilante strikes me as a strong person, willing to act on his beliefs in a more courageous way than most.

In contrast, I consider blowing up at someone for something they've said to be a sign of weakness. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't blow my top under certain circumstances.

[BCPVP]

Wrong? Yeah. Are people like Phelps going to get sympathy from me if something bad happens to them? Nope.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of ethics, I don't really consider vigilantism a good idea, except in cases of extreme injustice that the court system refuses to solve,

[/ QUOTE ]

The main problem with vigilantism is the lack of rigor in the evidence gathering. Courts are not created to deliver justice but fairness and objectivity and some rigor to the process.

It's frustrating to hear "innocent until proven guilty" on talk shows. If we have a film of the murder, but it gets tossed out of court and he goes free, obviously he's not innocent, he is guilty but just not in the game of 'In a court of law'.

If some vigilante did him in then justice would be achieved. Np in that particular case, but it all revolves around the slippery slope problems it creates.

Accepting living within the 'rule of law' is one of the main tests of a civilized society, but it only works if the courts can maintain respect. The current system is too far away from delivering any semblance of justice to hold a lot of peoples respect and that creates an environment where a tolerance or admiration of vigilantism can grow.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

Good responses everyone, thanks for the input. It was fun to have a topic that was 'non-partisan' at least in theory.