Inspired by a thread about a neighbor’s dog crapping in their lawn, I was wondering about the type of situations in which people thought it desirable that folk who consider themselves injured/aggrieved administer their own justice. I’m having a hard time coming up with any.
It is not unusual for someone to say things like, “I wish we could still settle these things with a fistfight.” Or, “I long for the days when you could give that snotty neighborhood kid a swat on the behind.” Or, “If your neighbor’s music annoys you, play your stereo louder.” In a way, I feel some portion for the desire for personal firearms carry is an unreasonable and undesirable idea of “frontier justice”, as well as a lack of respect for the authorities and societal institutions.
Disclaimer, I’m a longtime lawyer/judge, so I’ve been inculcated to believe that one ought to follow the law and rely on the authorities to enforce it. If you do something illegal in response, then you become the bad actor, and ought to expect to bear the consequences. And if the authorities feel your concerns aren’t worth enforcing, well, sucks to be you.
So, if someone pisses you off, or you feel does you wrong. In what kinds of situations do you feel you ought to be able to respond other than by expressing yourself verbally and/or engaging the authorities and/or a private lawyer, without facing any legal or civil consequences for doing so?
In order to stop a crime is about the only case I can think of where immediate intervention is appropriate and repercussion should be minimal to non-existent, and then only intervention in measure enough to stop the crime. I’m pretty hard line on justice being administered through the system.
A huge problem with this attitude is that sometimes thevpoluce just won’t respond…at least in a huge underpoliced city like Los Angeles. Neighbors partying at 3am? Unless its an upper class neighborhood, the police won’t respond (although it might be because they have other more urgent calls). Your car gets broken into or your bike stolen? What can we do? File a police report. When the authorities can’t or won’t respond, what are we supposed to do? Lay back and take it?
Condensing the wall’o’text down to a specific question, you’re asking when I would feel justified in resorting to violence?
Defending the life or safety of others from active or imminent violence. Likewise, my own life or safety. The immediate safety and possession of my property, to an extremely limited extent.
Other than that, never. The first one to resort to violence is already the loser. In civilization, we outsource retribution to lawful authority.
Going from old movies and TV shows, giving someone a poke in the snot locker was a reasonable response to provocation. I am a nonviolent person, and I can’t see myself starting a physical confrontation.
I would prefer to use the cold calculus of draconian laws. It’s the Machiavellian streak in me. If you hit someone, he’ll just get mad. If you grind him through the Wheels of Justice, you remove his hope and destroy his soul.
Wow - first time I ever saw 11 lines divided into 4 paragraphs, described as a wall’o’text! And the pretty direct issues/questions presented in the 1st and last paragraphs, seem pretty specific, and do not limit the discussion to violence.
One instance I thought of was folk personally enforcing their ideas as to proper merging behavior. Such as when 2 trucks will slowly drive side by side before a merge. While I dislike such behavior, that is the best example I’ve come up with yet of personal enforcement of one’s ideas of the law/societal mores.
Yes, I understand the difficulty if one lived in an area that was underserved by community resources. I imagine generally accepted forms or interaction might be different in such areas than in most “safer”, lower crime, higher socioeconomic areas. But even in those situations, as a matter of policy I feel that if you take the law into your own hands, you have to be prepared to face the potential consequences.
I guess I was realizing that I hear such suggestions somewhat often, but rarely do I or anyone else respond, “Bullshit.”
I’ve had a situation where someone did me wrong and I spent the next year or so telling everyone the story. The person eventually gave in and paid me what was owed just to shut me up.
Or, if you’re a lady, a slap on the face was a reasonable response to sexual harassment.
There’s violence, and then there’s violence. A sock in the nose, a slap on the face, or a swat on the behind are the kind of “violent” responses that usually hurt, but don’t seriously injure, the recipient. And I have mixed feelings about such things. I think they might be reasonable and appropriate if—and here’s the big “if”—you’re in an environment where there aren’t any more “civilized” means of defending yourself that you can appeal to.
A frustrating situation can arise when even a verbal confrontation could potentially suffice for someone to swear out a complaint for assault or disturbing the peace. Yes, living in a society of laws can lead to incidents in which one feels emasculated/powerless.
Context warning. The incident described below happened around 25 years ago.
A loved one was killed by a drunk driver. Throughout the trial evidence was developed that the accused had an active and serious alcohol abuse problem. The accused was convicted.
At sentencing the family and loved ones of the victim were able to give a victim impact statement. We pleaded that any sentence include alcohol and drug counseling and any early release be conditional on random alcohol and drug testing.
The judge was, in polite terms, a good ol’ boy. The sentence handed down did not including the sort of counseling we had asked for. And after far too short a time he received early release without any conditions imposed by the parole board that would address his substance abuse issues.
IMHO we, the family and friends of the victim, did not ask for anything beyond reasonable and appropriate orders that were within the scope of court’s authority. We were let down. And later on his release on parole we pleaded for an order that directly sought to rehabilitate the offender, but again were let down.
Speaking only for myself, I felt the justice system let us down. I didn’t want to physically hurt this man but I did feel it would have been reasonable to use force to a limited extent to make this man deal with his alcohol issues.
Drag him to AA meetings. Physically hold him down while a GPS enabled alcohol monitor is attached. Slam the door to the liquor store closed in his face. Have the bouncer at his favorite bar toss him out.
Not always a possibility. I knew a guy who got DUIs on a regular basis. Eventually he had another DUI and was sentenced to 3 years.
In prison he was offered a potential reduction in his sentence if he went to classes/counseling. He refused. After a year and a half he was offered release with a period of probation so long as he did not drink, attended AA meetings, etc. He turned down the offer, choosing instead to serve his complete sentence.
The day he was released he showed up at the bar, already drunk, expecting people to buy him drinks in celebration. Nobody wanted anything to do with him.
A few weeks later he showed up again, wanting to buy a couple of six-packs, but he was too drunk to stand up and was 86’d from the bar. Haven’t seen him since.
The offender in our family’s case did pretty much the same thing. Got out of jail from previous DUI and went straight out to get drunk to celebrate. Then he got in his truck, drove, and killed my loved one later that day. Wasn’t out of jail even 12 hours. BAC more than twice legal limit.
I understand that it is a near impossibility to force an addict to actually want to reform. But the court and parole board could have made participation in rehabilitation efforts a condition of receiving preferential treatment (good behavior time/parole). They didn’t.
So I could understand a sort of vigilante desire on the part of a victim or a victim’s family to take extra-judicial measure to be sure such an addict never got drunk or high ever again.
