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

[soulmurk]

@Cervaise

When I posted the OP, I wasn’t sure there was a debate here. Thanks for the interesting points of view, y’all.The documentary After Innocence, whose subject is the lives of men released from prison following exoneration for crimes they did not commit, features the story of a man positively identified by a rape victim as her rapist. She picked him out of a lineup; she pointed to him in court. And, what do you know, she was wrong. After years of believing firmly that she had named her assailant, DNA evidence not only proved him innocent, but exposed the actual rapist. The film shows photographs of the two men published side-by-side in the newspaper, making it clear that they do not resemble each other in any way other than their race. Somehow, the woman had suffered a brutal attack, looked directly into the face of her attacker, and then had mistaken the face for another’s. In the film, she says that when she looks at the picture of the true rapist, she still doesn’t recognize him.

To her credit, as part of apologizing to the falsely accused man for destroying several years of his life, she now travels with him to police and other conferences, expressing her regret to him in front of audience after audience, in order to communicate the near-total unreliability of eyewitness testimony. It’s a remarkable story.

And if she’d just gone ahead and killed the man she was dead certain had raped her, or if she’d asked or hired someone else to commit the murder, we never would have heard about it.

Reminds me of an old Alfred Hitchcock Presents where a woman was raped in her home while her husband was at work.

After picking her up at the hospital, they’re driving home and she spots the rapist walking down the street. She identifies him to her husband and after he gets her utmost assurance that she could not possibly forget him, he parks and follows the man to his car in a parking garage where he beats him to death.

Getting back in his car, they continue their ride home when she identifies the next man she sees as her rapist.

[Monty]

kimstu:

In addition to his or her post being needlessly insulting, Voodoochile has posited that he or she would be forced to kill the offender.

[Beadalin]

The killer has turned himself in.

From the Seattle Times:

Michael Anthony Mullen, 36, who gave no fixed address but has lived in Whatcom County most of his life, called 911 to claim responsibility Monday and was contacted by officers, who said he gave information that only the killer would know, according to a police news release. He was jailed for investigation of two counts of first-degree murder.

Mullen said Hank Eisses, 49, and Victor Vasquez, 68, convicted child rapists, had both been shot in the head Aug. 27, gave the caliber of the gun and said a briefcase had been taken to the scene, according to the police statement.

He said he took some time to plan the killings and targeted at least one of the two men after checking the county sheriff’s Web site on July 13, according to the police statement. As is typical throughout the state, the Web site includes the residences of sex offenders who are required to register with local authorities.

[soulmurk]

From the above linked article:

“One possible reason was the case in Idaho,” Bellingham Police Lt. Craige Ambrose told The Associated Press. Ambrose wouldn’t elaborate, saying the case was still under investigation.

I get it now. I had no idea that one of the victims was the same guy linked to that case. There was/is a LOT of hostility around here about that.

I notice the article also makes sure to mention how the killer got their names from a website listing convicted sex offenders. I really hope that doesn’t become the crux of the issue.

[Marley23]

@soulmurk

I get it now. I had no idea that one of the victims was the same guy linked to that case. There was/is a LOT of hostility around here about that.

I’m confused. Are you being sarcastic and I’m missing it, or have I overlooked something in the article? These guys had nothing to do with that case. All we know is that Mullen said that case motivated him. Unless we learn something else, he’s just a guy who decided some sex offenders in his locale needed to die.

[soulmurk]

@Marley23

I’m confused. Are you being sarcastic and I’m missing it, or have I overlooked something in the article? These guys had nothing to do with that case. All we know is that Mullen said that case motivated him. Unless we learn something else, he’s just a guy who decided some sex offenders in his locale needed to die.

No, you’re right, I misinterpreted the first paragraph to say that one of the victims was the man accused of the kidnappings in Idaho.

Sounds to me like this guy is already setting up his defense.

[Cervaise]

Now that he’s been caught and will be tried, the question becomes: If you were on the jury, would you vote to convict?

Me: yes, presuming the prosecution makes its case, standards of evidence have been met, etc. The act is not its own defense. Based on the thread, though, I suspect that others will disagree.

[ParentalAdvisory]

@Cervaise

Now that he’s been caught and will be tried, the question becomes: If you were on the jury, would you vote to convict?

Well, he did commit actual crimes, so yes, convict. I think this thread was more of do you agree with what he did, not should he get away with it in court.

[Cervaise]

I bring it up only because the vehemence of some people’s responses suggests they may indeed have been willing to vote not to convict.

But it says in the paper today that he’s going to plead guilty, so it’s moot, anyway.

[TokyoBayer]

@ParentalAdvisory

If I were violated and wanted to carry out an act of vigilantism, I would make sure I would carry out the deed with whom I had the actual beef.

And where are the checks to ensure that (1) you’re not mistaken and (2) the the punishment is appropriate to the crime?

There is another danger here, which can be seen in the IRA after the Good Friday agreement, which among other criminal activities, engages in

punishment beatings of civilians accused of criminal or “antisocial” behaviour

In an article I read several years ago from an London newspaper showed xrays of the thigh bones pulverized on an accusted drug dealer. In one of the best arguments against vigilantism, it went on to point out a major danger: power corrupts. It’s not a far stretch from killing an accused rapist to beating up someone because they bumped you on the street. Or, in the case of Robert McCartney killing you for getting into a bar fight.

[Pushkin]

@Plynck

Sorry, that one went right over my head…

From Wikipedia.

A vivid line, but not one I cared to read over lunch