A vigilante is apparently hunting and killing sex offenders in Washington State

Great Debates
1

Link: Two are dead, and a letter purportedly from the vigilante claims more to follow.

(I didn’t link to the story in a more local paper, because the stories go to registration the following day. Click for the front page and freely available stories for today.)

In any other week, this might be bigger news than it is. And in a movie, of course, the killer would be a Bronsonesque hero. In reality, though, he’s…

…Well, let’s say his status is rather more ambiguous.

Obviously, the police don’t want someone running around like this, serving as a one-man judge and executioner. It’s not condusive to a healthy society, our Hollywood fantasies notwithstanding, for private citizens to personally pursue justice outside the system.

Of course, nobody’s saying the sex offenders, who were both Level 3, the worst of the worst, aren’t (or, I guess, weren’t) scum. One of the dead men repeatedly raped family members; the other raped a three-year-old. But they did their time, and they were released according to the law. And, despite neighbors’ strenuous objections to the men occupying their neighborhood, locals say “they’ve caused no trouble.”

Still, I’d be shocked if there weren’t at least a few people out there quietly rooting for the vigilante, and supporting his morbid quest. Is anyone here willing to admit it, or even actively defend him? How high a priority should law enforcement make the apprehension of the killer? And if the result is that the state is forced to repeal its notification laws, which make the home addresses of registered sex offenders publicly available, is that acceptable?

Personally, I think the guy’s a dangerous lunatic, and he should be stopped and prosecuted. But I simultaneously concede that I’m unable to shed a tear for the rapists he executed.

What says the collective wisdom of the Dope?

2

Can’t say I morn the loss of a couple of level 3 sex offenders. However, this guy is obviously crazy and may decide the next catagory of people that need to die includes lazy internet straight dope posters. He needs be to caught and stopped.

3

Dead dog in alley. Tire tread on burst stomach.

4

I can’t say it. I won’t say it.

5

Replace “personally” with flagrantly and I agree with you 100%.

6

The problem here, beyond the moral implications, is that vigilantism threatens the public notification law that can help to keep people safe from sexual predators.

Sex offenders who fear being killed by some nut, understandably would be reluctant to report their address to police (which then becomes public record) as is required or could force them into a situation where they choose not to have a fixed address.

It’s better to have sex offenders out in the open where they can be monitored, than to drive them underground where they pose a much greater threat.

Use all the insults you want against sex offenders, but the real threat here is the vigilante.

7

We’re trying to have a civilization here. Having Rorschach wander around knocking off criminals, even loathsome people like those sex offenders, will only end badly.

His arrest should be as much of a priority as any multiple murderer’s.

8

I have the same feelings. He should be apprehended, but the loss of these scumbags… well, who will miss them?

9

Not you or I, but even people who’ve done seriously fucked-up things have parents who’ll mourn a lost a son, siblings who’ll miss lost a brother, and friends who’ll lose a companion. And if none of those apply then their lives are all the more tragic.

I’m against making information on registered sex offenders publicly available, but I felt that way before this case. I hope the murderer is caught.

10

Even if you have no problem with vigilantism, what happens when ( not if ) he makes a mistake ? That’s a major reason we have trials and appeals, after all; even the cops make mistakes. Some self-appointed crusader is likely to be a lot worse.

The reason private vengeance is illegal isn’t to protect the criminals; it’s to protect everybody.

11

Not to mention, a lot of poeple are on the sex offenders list in many areas that are there for other crimes like public indecency [taking a whiz in an alley] as many jurisdictions don’t differentiate between the harder sex crimes and softer ones like public indecency.

I would shed few tears for a serial rapist, but would be very upset to see someone who got drunk and pissed in an alley killed just because their names were on the same listing.

I REALLY would like to see those jurisdictions actualyl come out and state WHAT the person is on the lsit for, complete with a case number.

12

Q1) Who will miss them?
A1) Their families very well may miss them. They may have had jobs and thus their employers will miss them.

Q2) How high a priority should this be for the police?
A2) As high as any other serial murder investigation.

Q3) Who will mourn them?
A3) Any person who holds human life in high regard. Regardless of their crimes, they were still human beings. The person who ended their lives is a murderer. And as noted above by another poster, that murderer could very well decide in the future that there’s something about you that’s just not right.

13

Indeed. Fortunately, unlike the living heck which is the life of ficitonal TV character Jack McCoy on Law and Order, he probably won’t be able to turn the court iunto a huge circus and will be convicted appily by a jury.

14

I dunno know about that, but this particular guy does, since he’s egotistical enough to taunt the police with that letter. He doesn’t sound stable.

15

I’m sure their fellow sex offenders will miss them too. Their victims, however, will not.

If society insists on putting these highly dangerous individuals back into the community then consequences such as the present slaying will follow as sure as night the day.

I don’t have any answers but we owe it to our children to come up with something better than releasing them and keeping our fingers crossed that they won’t re-offend.

And, yes, the guy that shot them is a dangerous nut.

16

My distress is more towards the affront this guy is doing towards the concept of rule of law, than towards his victims. If you were to ask me what group of people I thought we least needed, they would be this guy’s victims. But that’s doesn’t matter - this person must be stopped, because anyone acting as judge, jury and executioner is an affront to the rule of law. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than anything else that’s been tried.

I don’t like the various “Megan’s Laws.” And didn’t before this. I just wish the debates about RSO laws would be focusing on that girl who’d been found kidnapped earlier this summer, not on this. But vigilante justice is more “sexy,” so it’s going to be the focus.

17

So it’s up to me, eh?

**Good for him. ** Really.

18

There is no such thing as selective lawlessness.

Eventually, this guy will become arrogant, & branch out.

So, stop him they must.

19

While I’ll respect your willingness to step up and take what would appear so far to be an unpopular stance, please elaborate on why you think vigilantism, particularly in this instance, is defensible.

20

Sure it is. Goes with selective policing.