Lissener and Jonathan - I understand Vigilantism is wrong, and said peoplea re committing a crime. However I am not talking about people who blow up abortion clinics or anything of that sort. What about the neighbor who hears his downstairs neighbor raping his 6 year old little girl…Should he do nothing about it?
I think there’s a difference between “vigilantism” and preventing a violent crime that is actually in progress.
And even then the person involved should intervene to prevent the crime…not prevent it and execute the perpetrator.
Just a reminder,
vigilantism != execution.
If I hear my downstairs neighbor raping the 6 year old I can:
A. Call the police and wait.
B. Call the police and go downstairs to stop it myself.
C. Call the police and go downstairs to kill the rapist.
D. Do nothing.
E. Go downstairs and stop in myself.
F. Go downstairs to kill the rapist.
I think any option but A and D is vigilantism, to varying degrees.
I think, if we ranked these from most morally reprehensible to least, the “Do nothing” option would be worse than several of the options that can be classified as vigilantism.
Debaser none of your options are vigilantism.
Except for options C and F, but only if you killed the man in cold blood.
There is a difference in killing him because that was the ONLY way of stopping him, or if he attacked you and you acted in self defence.
It’s an entirely different thing if you manage to subdue him, tie him up, and then decide to execute him. That makes you a murderer.
Yes you are. Like it or not, that’s exactly who you’re talking about.
From Dictionary.com
vig·i·lan·te
-
One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one’s own hands.
-
A member of a vigilance committee.
Once again: vigilantism does not equal murder.
AFAIK. Unless there is some more modern slang definition that equates all vigilantism with execution?
I am either missing something here, or many posters in this thread are confusing the term vigilante with the term lynch.
Going downstairs to stop the hypothetical rapist myself is taking the law into my own hands. That’s exactly what vigilantism is.
Debaser, you are not taking the law into your own hands in that case, as you are not convicting/sentencing/punishing someone for their actions. You are merely preventing or stopping a crime until the authorities arrive to take the law into their hands.
Preventing a crime from occurning is not vigilantism. Punishing someone for a crime on your own without use of the justice system, that is exactly what vigilantism is.
Well, that’s not what the definition says. It specifically says “One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one’s own hands.”
It talks about enforcement, not punishment.
I am really not trying to start an argument on a nitpick here, but it does seem that a lot of people have a different version of exactly what vigilantism is.
Rape is against the law. By stopping the rape downstairs our theoretical person would be enforcing the law, would he not?
I didn’t say anything about waiting for authorities to arrive so I am not sure why you would assume such a thing.
In some examples the police were called, in others they were not. If you are waiting for the authorities to arrive in scenarios D, E or F you would be waiting a long time, because the police aren’t coming.
Also, a correction:
scenario E should read:
E. Go downstairs and stop him myself.
If everyone is so opposed to the idea, why is the Batman legacy so popular? The role of the noble Vigilante is one often portrayed in American entertainment, and we all feel good when that vigilante exacts his or her revenge. At least I do, and I doubt that I’m alone.
But my question is when does justifiable homicide become vigilantism? You obviously take the law into your own hands at that point. What differs?
Point taken Debaser, though I’d say that the form of vigilanteism most of us are talking about is when an individual puts himself beyond the law in order to enforce it.