Anonymous and viglant justice

[doubtingt]

As with all acts, the morality and legality of vigilantism are distinct issues. All acts of vigilantism should be illegal and prosecuted, without regard to whether the act seemed morally justified. This is because the stability and legitimacy of any formal legal system requires that it be the only allowed system for meeting out punishments. If a known and confessed killer of kids gets off by a technicality, but then someone shoots him, that shooter must be prosecuted for murder. To do otherwise is equal to the state executing the confessed killer themselves in violation of the laws on which he got off on and we cannot give the State such power to operate outside the law. Ironically, demanding that the State prosecutes all vigilantism, no matter how seemingly "just", is required to keep State power in check.

All that said, morality is another matter, and morally I could easily imagine a situation in which I would have no moral objection to an act of vigilantism and doing nothing to stop it or to help the State prosecute the person. In principle I would expect and want the State to do its duty to try and prosecute the person, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to person to get away with it.

Too often a dangerous narcissism on both the left and the right makes people view their personal moral feelings as the same thing as what the law should be and when it should be enforced. But for any specific instance, they are often not the same and we need to separate what we would personally do to what we know the law ought to do.

 

[Unbeatable]

I approve of vigilante acts which target people I dislike and disapprove of the rest. All vigilante acts need to remain illegal, though.

 

[NobleSavage]

I approve of vigilante acts which target people I dislike and disapprove of the rest. All vigilante acts need to remain illegal, though.

That is about the best summary I've read.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The name of the cop should have never been secret in the first place. Police shouldn't have the right to anonymity if they shoot people.

Reveal it when we have the facts. We don't yet.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm of the opinion that when vigilantes operate, they should be arrested, and investigated, but that they should be tried not upon whether they were authorized to operate by the state, but rather on the rightfulness of their actions.

The only case I can see where that would be relevant is if a vigilante killed someone who had escaped from the execution chamber.

 

[doubtingt]

I approve of vigilante acts which target people I dislike and disapprove of the rest. All vigilante acts need to remain illegal, though.

Not really. Is shooting a guy solely because you dislike him the same thing as shooting the same guy because he is raping your daughter?
If you were a witness, would you feel equally compelled to stop the shooter in both cases?
Its a matter of what the person did and the certainty that they did it. They legal system does not exist to tell us who did what. It is incapable of telling us that and is not designed for that. The very different question that court cases tell us is whether, under a very narrow set of rules that are not optimized for finding truth but often protecting rights, privacy, police abuse, etc.., is there enough "acceptable" (not scientifically valid) evidence to allow the state to exert punishments on the persons property and body (incarceration is an act of violence) for which the state or its actors cannot be held criminally liable?

Its pretty silly to think that anyones sense of morality or justice would be solely determined by the outcome of court cases. Thus, its equally silly to think their moral approval of punishments would be solely determined by the punishments that the courts determined it can and should meet out.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm of the opinion that when vigilantes operate, they should be arrested, and investigated, but that they should be tried not upon whether they were authorized to operate by the state, but rather on the rightfulness of their actions.

Meting out justice without due process is by definition not a rightful action.

I should add that in this particular case I'm not sure publishing someone's name amounts to a vigilante act. If someone now goes out and kills the guy that would be the vigilante act.

So you axiomatically declare that rightness flows from the teat of government? Then pay your taxes and quit bitching about regulation!

 

[steve_bnk]

The name would come out eventually, It is said to be revealed today.

Such an uncorroborated release could lead to violence, irresponsible. What if they named the wrong person and he was killed or the family attacked.

Anonymous rages against the system, but then enacts its own morality without any accountability.

 

[dismal]

Meting out justice without due process is by definition not a rightful action.

I should add that in this particular case I'm not sure publishing someone's name amounts to a vigilante act. If someone now goes out and kills the guy that would be the vigilante act.

So you axiomatically declare that rightness flows from the teat of government? Then pay your taxes and quit bitching about regulation!

No, there is objective rightness. Someone is a killer or they aren't. I get this.

The problem is the average mob is not generally well equipped to assess this and encouraging them to assess and mete out justice will result in frequent injustice.

Do you want the Bayesian lecture now?

 

[Jarhyn]

So you axiomatically declare that rightness flows from the teat of government? Then pay your taxes and quit bitching about regulation!

No, there is objective rightness. Someone is a killer or they aren't. I get this.

The problem is the average mob is not generally well equipped to assess this and encouraging them to assess and mete out justice will result in frequent injustice.

Do you want the Bayesian lecture now?

Did I say anything about not prosecuting bad decisions as pertains to vigilante justice? That there ought be no consequences for sloppy, even if successful, civilian intercession? I seem to recall advocating that they be arrested and tried and pardoned only when they show that their action was the right decision to make.

You did in fact just say that justice BY DEFINITION requires a nebulous but government driven thing called 'due process'. And now you conflate justice which by definition according to you is a government process with some other form of justice that is based on a consequent. Get your story straight.

 

[dismal]

No, there is objective rightness. Someone is a killer or they aren't. I get this.

The problem is the average mob is not generally well equipped to assess this and encouraging them to assess and mete out justice will result in frequent injustice.

Do you want the Bayesian lecture now?

Did I say anything about not prosecuting bad decisions as pertains to vigilante justice? That there ought be no consequences for sloppy, even if successful, civilian intercession? I seem to recall advocating that they be arrested and tried and pardoned only when they show that their action was the right decision to make.

You did in fact just say that justice BY DEFINITION requires a nebulous but government driven thing called 'due process'. And now you conflate justice which by definition according to you is a government process with some other form of justice that is based on a consequent. Get your story straight.

I'm happy define "Justice" as a sort of karmic concept of the right things happening to the right people.

"Due process" is a system we have adopted because it tends to result in more justice in the real world than the imprecision of the mob.

 

[thief of fire]

Some hackers released the name of the Cop who shot Michael Brown. They also have audio recording. They are hiding under the banner of "Anonymous". What are your thoughts on vigilant justice? In general I think it's bad. It was vigilantes in the past who hung blacks from trees.

What if some "hackers" released the names of some KKK members who lynched some blacks?

 

[Togo]

I'd prefer vigilantism to be a crime with a public interest defence.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The name of the cop should have never been secret in the first place. Police shouldn't have the right to anonymity if they shoot people.

Reveal it when we have the facts. We don't yet.

The department certainly has the facts. They could have revealed it on the first day.

If a person is accused of shooting a police officer, that person's name is splashed across headlines nation-wide, even before it is determined if the person really did it.

 

[fast]

The name would come out eventually, It is said to be revealed today.

Such an uncorroborated release could lead to violence, irresponsible. What if they named the wrong person and he was killed or the family attacked.

Anonymous rages against the system, but then enacts its own morality without any accountability.

A corroborated release could lead to violence. Are you suggesting that because it could lead to violence of the wrong person is what's wrong, but okay if it leads to violence of the right person?

What difference (btw) does it make (to whether or not releasing an officers name that shot someone) may lead to violence? Such a thing doesn't cause violence. An indirect cause because someone may act upon the information? That may happen corroborated or not. Better to put the right person in harms way, I guess.

 

[Jarhyn]

The name would come out eventually, It is said to be revealed today.

Such an uncorroborated release could lead to violence, irresponsible. What if they named the wrong person and he was killed or the family attacked.

Anonymous rages against the system, but then enacts its own morality without any accountability.

A corroborated release could lead to violence. Are you suggesting that because it could lead to violence of the wrong person is what's wrong, but okay if it leads to violence of the right person?

What difference (btw) does it make (to whether or not releasing an officers name that shot someone) may lead to violence? Such a thing doesn't cause violence. An indirect cause because someone may act upon the information? That may happen corroborated or not. Better to put the right person in harms way, I guess.

I'd say that it isn't whether or not it will lead to violence or whether or not it is the right person, the standard should be whether or not it was better planned out than police action, and executed by more competent people, and upon whose mistakes the failures hinges on, or whether they were do to accidental factors.

I generally think that the failure to do the right thing in a responsible way that is likely to yeild results is rare. Most vigilantes would, under that model, still go to a correctional facility. The difference is that the ones who act generally well and on knowledge checked as thoroughly as is possible before imminent need to take those actions don't get put away. We should hold police to the same standard.