In theory, yes. In reality, no.If the targets of vigilantism are beyond a reasonable doubt guilty then getting them convicted should be easy, right?
What are your thoughts on vigilantes? Vigilantes are people who take care of the bad guys that the police fail to catch. For instance, an extreme case of vigilantism would be Dexter Morgan from the TV show Dexter. It is generally frowned (illegal) upon by most law enforcement agencies. I think that it's a good thing, so long as they don't cross the line, for instance, if they make sure that whoever they are about to kill or arrest is beyond a reasonable doubt guilty first, and so long as they only kill people who committed really bad crimes like murder or rape or genocide or something along those lines. That being said, I don't know any vigilantes personally, but so long as they are doing good, I have no problem with it. If it works, it works. You know what they say, the end justifies the means.
What are your thoughts on vigilantes? Vigilantes are people who take care of the bad guys that the police fail to catch. For instance, an extreme case of vigilantism would be Dexter Morgan from the TV show Dexter. It is generally frowned (illegal) upon by most law enforcement agencies. I think that it's a good thing, so long as they don't cross the line, for instance, if they make sure that whoever they are about to kill or arrest is beyond a reasonable doubt guilty first, and so long as they only kill people who committed really bad crimes like murder or rape or genocide or something along those lines. That being said, I don't know any vigilantes personally, but so long as they are doing good, I have no problem with it. If it works, it works. You know what they say, the end justifies the means.
What are your thoughts on vigilantes? Vigilantes are people who take care of the bad guys that the police fail to catch. For instance, an extreme case of vigilantism would be Dexter Morgan from the TV show Dexter. It is generally frowned (illegal) upon by most law enforcement agencies. I think that it's a good thing, so long as they don't cross the line, for instance, if they make sure that whoever they are about to kill or arrest is beyond a reasonable doubt guilty first, and so long as they only kill people who committed really bad crimes like murder or rape or genocide or something along those lines. That being said, I don't know any vigilantes personally, but so long as they are doing good, I have no problem with it. If it works, it works. You know what they say, the end justifies the means.
What are your thoughts on vigilantes? Vigilantes are people who take care of the bad guys that the police fail to catch. For instance, an extreme case of vigilantism would be Dexter Morgan from the TV show Dexter. It is generally frowned (illegal) upon by most law enforcement agencies. I think that it's a good thing, so long as they don't cross the line, for instance, if they make sure that whoever they are about to kill or arrest is beyond a reasonable doubt guilty first, and so long as they only kill people who committed really bad crimes like murder or rape or genocide or something along those lines. That being said, I don't know any vigilantes personally, but so long as they are doing good, I have no problem with it. If it works, it works. You know what they say, the end justifies the means.
“What are your thoughts on vigilantes?” - Solace
Unfortunately, I’m all for ‘em.
My house was broken into a couple of years ago by some young people (one was 16 the other 21) looking for a place to hang-out and do drugs. My neighbors saw them break-in and called the cops. The cops found them in the house smoking pot. Please understand:
1. My neighbors witnessed these people break-in to the house.
2. The cops found them inside the house using drugs.
3. These people admitted to being in the house.
4. The finger prints of the kids were found in the house.
5. Their drugs were found in the house and on them.
6. I had a private contractor come out and gave me a $1,700 estimate to fix the damages they did to the house.
7. I provided pictures and the estimate to the prosecutor.
All of this was admitted into evidence during the trial including my testimony that I had never seen these people before and that they did not have permission to be in my house at any time.
All of this and the judge found them "not guilty".
Sadly, the system is broken and does not work for decent people anymore.
"However, for every instance in which a guilty person isn't punished, there's an instance where an innocent person is punished." - samsmart
I understand your point. But is this instance there was no doubt of guilt...only the sheer incompetence of the judge and D.A.'s office.
That may be true.
However, for every instance in which a guilty person isn't punished, there's an instance where an innocent person is punished.
"Indeed. Even so, that is not enough justification to allow vigilantism, as it could get quite out of hand extremely quickly." - samsmart
Really? In my scenario there is justice. In yours...there is none.
While I understand the point you are making, I would have to dispute the numbers.
Having been part of the system at one time, and seeing its inner workings, I would guesstimate that 500 guilty go free (or nearly free) for every 1 innocent who is incarcerated.... at a minimum. Honestly, the way in which career criminals get off with short sentences, probation, or acquittal over and over is truly nauseating to those of us who worked to put them away, where they would be no threat to honest citizens. I've seen it so many times it makes me sick to think about the damage these individuals cause when they are put back out in society again and again.
This is one of the reasons why I advocate some very serious changes in our CJ system. I have come to agree with Korimir, that our system needs to be changed from an orientation towards punishment, to an orientation towards reform. Most minor offenses should involve repayment of those harmed, and/or community service activity. If a person commits a serious felony, (and I mean the FIRST time they commit a serious felony!!) then they are incarcerated in a reform instititute, and they don't leave until there is solid evidence to believe they have truly changed and will go straight. If this takes 5 years, 10 years, 20 years or 40 years, they don't leave until they exhibit changed behaviors and attitudes. I'd then give them 5 years on probation, where they are monitored closely for signs of recidivism, before restoring to them their full rights and freedom.
Those who don't change never get out. I would also say that certain crimes still carry mandatory life-without-parole, and that the death sentence remains suitable for certain heinous crimes. No more of this smack-on-the-wrist for first-time burglars and carjackers.
Pardon me, this is a subject about which I am passionate, because people I care about have suffered at the hands of repeat offenders.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?