Kamehapa said:
On the same hand, organized justice can also cause terrible actons. I hate to go all Reducio ad Hitlerum here, but when they saw inferior cultures doing an injustice to their great country, they took action that was legitamized by the state.
Yes, judicial bodies can do horrible horrible things. But in a state whereby judicial powers are dictated by elected officials you can enact change if you get enough people believing that change is necessary or that it will allow a collective good to occur by their implementation.
Street-level violence and damage to proerty to pursue political and social goals that are antithesis to the idea of collective trust in one's administration is by it's own merits wrong.
Vigilantes are generally driven by deluded power fantasies, grief or personal bias, or fear bordering on paranoia... Would you trust the widow who lost their spouse due to faulty brakepads to be an effective judicator in, say, a case where a mechanic is being charged with criminal neglect?
While vigilante justice often does tend to clash more with societal views (mostly because if there are enough people to agree with them it either IS taken care of by the state or not deemed vigilante) that does not mean it is unjust.
Of course it is unjust. If people wish to be police officers, then they should be police officers. In a stable society it requires training, temperance and restraint to effectively, and fairly, perform judicial practices. You will not get that with vigilantes, but it is a requirement if a society wishes to develop a lasting peace.
Would you trust someone not recognized by a judicial body, to patrol up and down your streets with weapons. Would you trust vigilantes to do the right thing with DUI's or petty thefts?
Whilst there are plenty of cases of police doing the wrong thing, but it's a farcry to say that 'this is every police officer' .. or whether vigilantes would somehow be better than police officers who require extensive psychological assessment and professional training before going into that field of labour.
Ther first thing that people seem to forget is that justice is a
shield ... to protect and serve the community ... it is not a weapon to simply beat people with it until they submit.
While vigilante justice is typically frowned upon, in the end it IS the same except that typically vigilanties represent the minority instead of the majority.
And how exactly is that justice?
EDIT: I think I should clarify here, I am not saying the vigilante justice is amazing, I am saying that since justice is a construct of man it varies person by person. This means there is no ultimate justice, and in the grand scheme of things NOTHING is just so the standard for judging others is in and of itself scewed.
Justice isn't a 'construct' ... it's built into every 'right thinking' individual (as per Kantian logic). It's a concept. A romantic notion whereby Man can live both equally free but equally beholden to another. To act with good will and to have that good will returned.
Just because it has yet to be properly emulated matters not, and I certainly do not see vigilantism as the picture of orderly and inobtrusive lawful conduct.
