There is one choice, 1 vote for Nathan Explosion's debate

Vigilantism

Does Vigilantism have a place and time, or is it simply 100% wrong because it is agianst the law.

• Exstreme Measure

  If you beleive their is no other option, you have consumed what you beleive to be all other resources, and you beleive that it is the ONLY way to protect what may be another victim. In this case I believe that it is moraly, not legaly, valid for a person to employ what ever force they deam necesary. HOWEVER, I don't beleive that even in a situation like this that one is not bound to the law, for you action to be moraly acceptable you must accept the consequence of you actions.

  Voted for by Nathan Explosion.

  View 16 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • 
    Dwn
    November 14, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I think that if you have the support and agreement within the reasonable and respectable members of your community, outside of law enforcement, then it is not only morral but just and your responcebility to do so, if any of those who suport your descition will stand with you, the more you have the better your chances of accomplishing your goals without negative consequince
  • 
    Stepherz804
    November 14, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    You guys make it sound like an old western. There are alot of things that fall into question with vigilantism.
  • 
    Dwn
    November 14, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    feel free to mention them stepherz
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    November 15, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Nathan Explosion

    I would agree, somewhat. The punishment should still apply, and it is still inlawful and even possibly a tad unethical but it is of a moral standing. Such instances for me, are faith, as this exceeds the ethical (Kierkegaardian hypothesis).
  • 
    Dwn
    November 15, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Only out of the governments controll, and only in cases where the laws or unjust, Exactly the way the people are supossed the legeslate what the government can do rather than the government legislate what the people can do
  • 
    Dwn
    November 15, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Yep procedures regulated by the very government that you are trying to change, Do you really think they will opperate outside of their own interests. That is certainly not what their track record shows.Lady Justice may be blind, but there is definant intication shes been peeping.
  • 
    Dwn
    November 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    that, and because the laws are unjust, they are also trying to maintain a ballance
  • 
    pnktrky
    November 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    vigilantes mainly come to be when the law enforcement is not what it should be to there expectations. in a town in mexico the police didnt do anything to robbers of the stores. then the ppl got together and practically almost killed someone all because the plice werent doing there job correctly.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    November 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Esfuerzo

    Yes, and this where I must say I have to agree with you. All laws should be adhered to, until a noteable stand can be made to change these laws. That's why we have a democracy. However, there may be extreme cases, as Nathan Explosion has wished to point out. I do believe the Bible is also in support of this.
  • 
    Stepherz804
    November 18, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Vigilantes do this as payback often times. That obviously shouldnt happen no matter how bad the offense. I dont care how many people are backing them up, its wrong. Karma will bite them in the butt later. Revenge and justice are sweet but I'm sure there are other ways to go about it. I have an example... Recently in my town there was a van with creepy guys going around trying to take kids. Everyone knew about it because it was on the news and the families made sure the word spread because the people who were involved were understandably terrified. The drama died down a bit but later one of the families heard of a fairly brutal beating of one of the people suspected. Now as a person involved with this case I was comforted by this yet annoyed. Comforted because the terror and sadness that came with this was so overwhelming it comsumed my life and I felt like justice was served a bit. Then annoyed because I would much rather have seen him rot in jail then just get beat up.
  • 
    Dwn
    November 19, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I cant disagree with that, the only time vigilantism is acceptable is in cases where it is the government that is unjust to the people, such as in, but not limited to, atempting to confinscate personal property. or the governing agencies ,going by the leter of the law, refusing to stop injustice against persons.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    November 20, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    The types of vigilantism that you have offered as supposedly acceptable are ignorant and dangerous, and they are not the type of society that we should model. Supposing that people should 'rot in jail' is an attitude type that motivates people into such vigilantism that they do take the law into their own hands out of a mis-guided judicial bloodlust. This is one of the types of vigilantism that I find as unacceptable.
  • 
    Stepherz804
    November 20, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I didnt say it was acceptable. I said and I quote "I would much rather have seen him rot in jail then just get beat up". Thus meaning that I dont think he should have gotten beaten up. Someone should have turned him in and then let them handle it. I at no point said that vigilantism whether in that case or others is acceptable. The law enforcement system is messed up. Its all about its own people or people with money but that doesnt mean people should take the law in their own hands. If they have that big of an issue with it maybe they should do something else about it.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: