Is Vigilante Justice the best answer ? [Archive]

SUPERECWFAN1

03-03-2006, 09:52 AM

On A & E thier running a show on how some people like Bernard Goetz are justified at times for using violence to defend themselves. Goetz claims that in 1984 he was about to be mugged by 4 would be muggers. He had been mugged months earlier and was scared for his life as he claims in his police interrogation.

The Goetz case ended with a 2nd Grand Jury indicting him for attempted murder and the final saw the Jury not convict him on anything serious. So whats the lesson here ?

The Gary Buchia case is erre when you think about it. His story happened on Camera !

In the 2nd most pivitol case , a karate teacher abducted his 11 yearold student. The boy managed to call 911 at a motel and after interviews with counslers they discovered the boy had been abused.

On camera the boy re-united with his mom and dad seemed happy. All 3 hugged and everything seemed ok. Of course weeks later , the camera's caught the teacher getting off the plane in police custody. In a shocker..the camera caught the father hangin up the phone , and gunning the molester down !

The father claims he had been drinking and his mind kept going back to his son. In his anger he decided that he needed to take care of that s.o.b . He was arrested on the spot.

The only problem was that people sorta rallied around the father. The Prosecuter wanted to persue the case and put Mansluaghter on the table for him. The father took the deal. The charge carried 0 to 21 years in that state.

The judge however got a report from where Buscha was being held that said he had suffered from tempory insanity due to drinking heavy. This had pushed him over an edge and they felt he would never do anything like this again.

The Judge sentenced him to 300 hours of community service and 5 years prohbation. In his words he felt Buscha had been pushed to the edge and asked " What other man would gun down someone with a TV camera there ? "

So in your thoughts...is it ok at times to do Vigilante Justice ? Or is it wrong and these cases are just instances where it came down to it ?

Cotton

03-03-2006, 10:00 AM

Whoa, this sounds like one of the episodes of Law and Order my friends made me watch a while back. In it, an apparent child abuser/killer was gunned down by the mother. It looked like she was going to walk because the Judge thought that any mother in that kind of state would do the same thing. The problem is, the mother hired the guy to abduct her child and killed the guy to cover up her tracks.

So, Vigilante Justice isn't the best answer because the KKK were a bunch of vigilantes, where was the justice in that? That and there's just too many X-factors to take the law into your own hands, what you may be doing is causing more harm than good.

But then again, sometimes, child abusers just don't serve enough time...

BlairH

03-03-2006, 10:32 AM

Vigilante justice certianly isn't ideal. This is one of the reasons why I believe the State, the Courts should be tough on crime, as it might stop victims from taking the law into their own hands if they see true justice carried out in the courtroom.

That said: Hi, I'm Blair Houston, and I am a Punisher fan!

tricksterpup

03-03-2006, 10:34 AM

Vigilante justice certianly isn't ideal. This is one of the reasons why I believe the State, the Courts should be tough on crime, as it might stop victims from taking the law into their own hands if they see true justice carried out in the courtroom.
Yes, but I am waiting for the day you to snap and become the Punisher.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/arrays/images/2003/punisher.jpg

Endel

03-03-2006, 11:14 AM

Its hard to condone vigilante justice since it is so heavily tied in with the concept of revenge. but then again, what is the death penalty but state-sponsered revenge? the death penalty doesnt reduce the crime rate, it doesnt stop people from doing horrible things to each other, it doesnt save taxpayers time or money. Its the government stepping in and sdaying 'we cant allow you to live anymore'. I dont think its the place of our government to do this. If it was wrong for the murderer to kill someone, how is state-enforced murder just? Killing is not justice. murder is not right.

but, one might ask, what about the victims family? what recourse to they get? Killing the killer doesnt bring a victim back. what it does is give some kind of finality, some kind of peace to the victims loved ones. It tells people that killers will be punished. But what about the killer's family? what about the sanctity of the killer's life?

if you are so hurt by what someone did that you want them dead, do it yourself. an angry mother shooting her son's killer sounds more like justice or finality then some state employie sticking a few needles into the killer while he's strapped to a gurney.

Winslow

03-03-2006, 11:29 AM

If we hope to have any sort of "Rule of Law" and peaceful transfer of power, vigilante justice cannot be tolerated.

Johnny_Storm

03-03-2006, 12:33 PM

I find vigilante's acceptable when there is no competent justice system and the violator is still a threat to someone.

Rae Rodriguez

03-03-2006, 12:38 PM

I find vigilante's acceptable when there is no competent justice system and the violator is still a threat to someone.Well said.

Noah Johnson

03-03-2006, 01:10 PM

This is one of the reasons why I believe the State, the Courts should be tough on crime, as it might stop victims from taking the law into their own hands if they see true justice carried out in the courtroom.
You know, all available evidence indicates that "tough on crime" policies don't actually work in terms of reducing crime.

How long should one continue with a policy that's known to not work?

Unless, of course, your goal is not crime reduction, but just some kind of ugly little revenge fantasy, which I fear is the case for far too much of the populace.

Grazzt

03-03-2006, 01:12 PM

I believe it depends on the type of justice being dispensed.

http://www.woolamaloo.org.uk/Simpsons%20-%20Pieman%20mini.jpg

I'm all for the pieing of the guilty.

jimmyboy

03-03-2006, 01:34 PM

The Judge sentenced him to 300 hours of community service and 5 years prohbation. In his words he felt Buscha had been pushed to the edge and asked " What other man would gun down someone with a TV camera there ? "

So in your thoughts...is it ok at times to do Vigilante Justice ? Or is it wrong and these cases are just instances where it came down to it ?
I think that, in general, vigilanteism (sp?) is wrong. I mean dealing out death and punishment. That's the job of the State, not the individual, where the rule of law is in effect. On the other hand, I firmly believe an individual should defend himself or others if the need arises. If that need involves lethal force, then too bad for the attacker.

The question of Buscha, he should have let the Law run its course. In cases where the guilty are set free, that's very difficult. I don't believe in murder (individuals dealing out death as a judgement), so that's not the way to go. But still...I can only begin to imagine what I would do if someone had violated one of my family. I understand why the father did what he did, and I can't say anything against him except that he should have let the Law run its course.

Tough situations. If I were Frank Castle, I'd probably do the same thing he does, because there are too many evil men getting away with murder, and too many innocents suffering because of it.

Bloopinator

03-03-2006, 01:35 PM

Is this thread about Batman?

Charles RB

03-03-2006, 01:43 PM

Can the vigilante make sure he is always going to only beat up and/or kill people who deserve it? He's never going to attack the wrong guy? Vigilante justice sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, frankly.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/arrays/images/2003/punisher.jpg

Who is this young pretty-boy and why is he pretending to be the Punisher?

BlairH

03-03-2006, 02:39 PM

You know, all available evidence indicates that "tough on crime" policies don't actually work in terms of reducing crime.

Depends what you mean by "tough on crime" policies. If you mean bigger prisons and longer prison sentences then they certianly have the capacity to work in the UK.

I'm sorry, but 2 years for rape is just absolutely atrocious, especially whwn they know the offender will strike again.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1440072004

Lyndsey Armstrong was a friend. She was a good person and now she's dead because of that 'tard. Call it a revenge fantasy if you like.

SUPERECWFAN1

03-03-2006, 02:46 PM

I think that, in general, vigilanteism (sp?) is wrong. I mean dealing out death and punishment. That's the job of the State, not the individual, where the rule of law is in effect. On the other hand, I firmly believe an individual should defend himself or others if the need arises. If that need involves lethal force, then too bad for the attacker.

The question of Buscha, he should have let the Law run its course. In cases where the guilty are set free, that's very difficult. I don't believe in murder (individuals dealing out death as a judgement), so that's not the way to go. But still...I can only begin to imagine what I would do if someone had violated one of my family. I understand why the father did what he did, and I can't say anything against him except that he should have let the Law run its course.

Tough situations. If I were Frank Castle, I'd probably do the same thing he does, because there are too many evil men getting away with murder, and too many innocents suffering because of it.

I really can't answer if I'd go crazy like Brucha did or not. I do feel for him and can see why he was in pain. To his credit , Brucha its said has went on to be a solid citizen since this and looks like a mild mannered man now.

The family of the man he shot was angry and the brother claims he should have let the Justice System worked. Had his brother been found guilty he would have gotten his just punishment.

In the story of Bernard Goetz , its been said that one of the poor men he shot is in a wheelchair and sued him in the 1990's. The jury ruled in his favor in the Civil Judgement.

Charles RB

03-03-2006, 02:48 PM

If you mean bigger prisons and longer prison sentences then they certianly have the capacity to work in the UK.

Bigger prisons, certainly- you don't want them overcrowded, you'll just end up with irritated convicts and heavily outnumbered guards.

I'd have thought that along with longer prison sentences, you'd also want to help convicts develop skills & stuff to function socially outside of prison (which, if you've been inside for a long time, will be hard) and get jobs so they stay out of prison.

BlairH

03-03-2006, 02:50 PM

I'd have thought that along with longer prison sentences, you'd also want to help convicts develop skills & stuff to function socially outside of prison (which, if you've been inside for a long time, will be hard) and get jobs so they stay out of prison.
For those few that want to partake in such opportunities? Sure. Tabula Rasa and all that. However I certianly wouldn't like to waste money "force feeding" those who do not wish to be nurtured.

Grazzt

03-03-2006, 02:50 PM

My serious reply: I think vigilanteism is wrong when used for the purposes of punishing the guilty. However, I'm all for it when its used to stop crimes that are in progress.

Charles RB

03-03-2006, 02:54 PM

However I certianly wouldn't like to waste money "force feeding" those who do not wish to be nurtured.

You don't know if they want to until you've tried though. And whether they want to or not, a load of ex-convicts being unused to operating outside of prison and with no real job skills doesn't help anyone

K'Nort

03-03-2006, 02:57 PM

For those few that want to partake in such opportunities? Sure. Tabula Rasa and all that. However I certianly wouldn't like to waste money "force feeding" those who do not wish to be nurtured.

But one reason the system fails over here is that so many people are against any sort of training and education. It's "pampering." Which then pretty much guarantees recidivism.

BlairH

03-03-2006, 02:57 PM

My serious reply: I think vigilanteism is wrong when used for the purposes of punishing the guilty. However, I'm all for it when its used to stop crimes that are in progress.

Absolutely. I wouldn't actually call that vigilanteism though. I'd call it defense.

Charles RB

03-03-2006, 03:00 PM

Absolutely. I wouldn't actually call that vigilanteism though. I'd call it defense.

Going in and preventing crimes happening to someone else wouldn't be defence though, since you're putting yourself in danger. (Though if someone was getting mugged, I'd hope I'd at least call the police and do it very loudly so the muggers know to run off)

Noah Johnson

03-03-2006, 03:35 PM

Going in and preventing crimes happening to someone else wouldn't be defence though, since you're putting yourself in danger. (Though if someone was getting mugged, I'd hope I'd at least call the police and do it very loudly so the muggers know to run off)
Standard gratuitous plug for the Guardian Angels; I know I always do this but we're always looking for volunteers. http://guardianangels.org/ Find a local chapter, give back to your community, free martial arts, first aid, and conflict resolution training, get a cool hat...

Iangould

03-03-2006, 03:39 PM

Yes, but I am waiting for the day you to snap and become the Punisher.

Nah, I'm waiting for him to be blinded by radioactive sludge and turn into Daredevil.

BlairH

03-03-2006, 04:01 PM

Nah, I'm waiting for him to be blinded by radioactive sludge and turn into Daredevil.

It would make sense given that I'm a...law...talking...guy...uh... a (wannabe) lawyer. I wouldn't be anywhere near as good as Matt is though. Perhaps I could be like Foggy, except with added blindness?

Iangould

03-03-2006, 04:04 PM

Elektra; Karen Page; The Black Widow; Echo.

Micks get the chicks.

Iangould

03-03-2006, 04:18 PM

Depends what you mean by "tough on crime" policies. If you mean bigger prisons and longer prison sentences then they certianly have the capacity to work in the UK.

Does your law degree include any subjects in criminology?

If it does, you should know that:

a. crime rates have been falling all over the developed world for about the last twenty years regardless of whether the policies you're advocating haven't been introduced in particular coutnries or not; and

b. Tony Blair has already introduced the exact policies you want.

It's always easy and oh so comforting to work oneself up into a righteous state of outrage over some particular sentence. "He only got 50 lashes? I'd give him a hundred.! "He's being hung? I think he should be flayed alive, rolled in acid THEN hung!"

Charles RB

03-03-2006, 05:46 PM

Rabid Trekkie

03-03-2006, 06:38 PM

Is it the best answer? No. That doesn't make it always wrong. Of course I think there is a difference between defence and being a vigilante, though some people who have defended themselves have been called one.

When it comes to defense, every person has the right to defend themselves from an attacker. I've told my sister more than once that if someone ever attacks her, that she's not to stop hitting until he stops twitching. Of course I'm hoping my sister would be armed so she wouldn't have to worry about hitting.

As for the example of the Father in the first post. I don't condone his actions, but I may have done the same thing. I can somewhat sympathize with him, seeing that bastard get to walk around after what he had done to the kid. I can also understand why the jury let the Father off with just a slap of the wrist.

nervmeister

03-03-2006, 06:45 PM

Less vigilantism, more kickboxing schools.

Rachel Grey

03-03-2006, 08:52 PM

I find vigilante's acceptable when there is no competent justice system and the violator is still a threat to someone.

Quoted for truth.

Charles RB

03-03-2006, 09:33 PM

Rachel Grey

03-03-2006, 09:37 PM

"When the violator is still a threat to someone" is too complicated an issue for me to view as truth. What's preventing vigilantes from attacking an innocent person because they thought he was a violator?

Let's get rid of prisons! What if a jury sentenced the wrong person?!!!!

Obviously you should try to get the right info before handing out the punishment.

Noah Johnson

03-04-2006, 04:47 AM

The only UK chapter is in London. :(
If you think your city needs a Guardian Angels chapter, all you need is a chapter leader and a small pool of volunteers. Contact the organization and we will fly experienced GA organizers in to get you kick-started. That's how the Portland chapter started, and our chapter leader was just recently in New Zealand along with several other leaders, getting the Auckland chapter up and running.

Gilda Dent

03-04-2006, 05:29 AM

It depends a lot on how you define it. I'd define vigilante justice as making an active effort to seek out criminals and punish them yourself outside the confines of the justice system.

Self-defense/defense of another is different. If somebody is attacking you or another, you have an absolute right to intervene.

Using only the former definition of vigilantism, I'd say no, it isn't justified. Violence is justified on a personal level only in defense of self or others.

I've tried searching for all of the spellings of the father's name from the op and can't find anything. Does anybody have a link?

Gilda

pennywisdom

03-04-2006, 05:36 AM

Standard gratuitous plug for the Guardian Angels; I know I always do this but we're always looking for volunteers. http://guardianangels.org/ Find a local chapter, give back to your community, free martial arts, first aid, and conflict resolution training, get a cool hat...
No, that hat couldn't be considered "cool" by any stretch of the imagination. It's fully impossible to expect someone wearing a raspberry beret to save your life in a fistfight.

Boldido

03-04-2006, 07:36 AM

No, that hat couldn't be considered "cool" by any stretch of the imagination. It's fully impossible to expect someone wearing a raspberry beret to save your life in a fistfight.

Like the kind you'd find at a second hand store?

Magneto_X

03-04-2006, 08:29 PM

Vigilantes aren't needed.

The chances of them hurting and/or killing an innocent are to high. And besides, it's what the police are there for. It isn't the communities job to hurt down/execute criminals. No matter how guilty they are.

The Goetz is a slippery one, but I can see that being okay. But he should still be changed for arrovated assault or *something*. Just because he got mugged once doesn't give him or anybody a license to hurt or kill any muggers before they "mug" him. Then it's self defense.

OTOH, the Bruccia case is a different story. He's guilty of murder. But I'd call it temporary insanity rather then first degree murder.

What Bruccia did was *wrong* and mustn't be encouraged.

Magneto_X

03-04-2006, 08:40 PM

Bigger prisons, certainly- you don't want them overcrowded, you'll just end up with irritated convicts and heavily outnumbered guards.

I'd have thought that along with longer prison sentences, you'd also want to help convicts develop skills & stuff to function socially outside of prison (which, if you've been inside for a long time, will be hard) and get jobs so they stay out of prison.

Agreed.

Prison systems are in real bad shape. Have been for years.

But it will take a lot of money and resources to make it even remotely better for society overall---and I don't see it happening anytime soon. :(

I'd like to see prisons have programs internally and externally to assist inmates and ex-inmates better their skills and have less rules restricting them of oppostunities in society once they're released.

How can they partipate in society if society won't help them by allowing them to be in programs that will help them live and get jobs.

It doesn't help that society treats them like crap, too.

I can understand why society does this but overall it all it does is make the ex-inmate return back to crime.

They shouldn't have *all* the same rights as a nomrla citizen (i.e. voting) but they need oppotunities to better themselves. That way they have a higher chance of not offending again.