Because if roughly 1% of the population turned themselves if for fear of being killed I would conclude that lots of innocent, powerless, and fearful people are trying to save their own lives. If you threaten to kill people without any due process a lot of innocent people are going to take that option.
They’re killing whoever they want. That’s the whole point of extra-judicial killing. You can kill anyone who you think is “bad”, or who you just don’t like, or you have a grudge against, or just got in your way. This is an inevitable result of this type of program.
I usually hate answering questions with questions, but let me ask you this: under what circumstances do you believe that we should not presume the innocence of people accused of a crime? Does that answer change since it is an irreocvable punishment that is being dealt to people accused of wrongdoing?
Here’s an idea. Instead of killing all these people who might be criminals, arrest them. And then hold trials, where you can look at the evidence and decide which ones are actually guilty of crimes. Then you can take the ones who are actual criminals and punish them. You can even execute them if you feel that strongly about it.
Yes I generally agree. Rule of law is VASTLY preferable to mob justice. But if rule of law is not a real option, then isn’t mob justice better than a government run by organized crime? There are parts of Mexico where vigiliantism is preferable to what they have now, aren’t there?
I can think of two related instances where a fastidious adherence to presumption of innocence might be less important than it is in a functional democracy operating under the rule of law.
When there is a collapse of rule of law.
When the justice system has gotten so irredeemably corrupt.
That doesn’t mean we should just kill random people in the hopes that some of them will be criminals. In truly corrupt places where the rule of law has collapsed, there is no real secret about who the criminals are. Sure there will be other killings that will be camouflaged by these extrajudicial killings but these are not societies where innocent people were not getting murdered. Do you think the extrajudicial killing created an opportunity for murder that didn’t exist before. Sure there will be some collateral damage but that collateral damage was already occurring and the extrajudicial killings might prevent more collateral damage in the future.
If the new government was serious about stripping away the power of drug cartels, they’d decriminalize drugs and set up an independent commission to identify and remove corrupt officials.
It’s only fun until someone loses a grandchild.
I admit a certain morbid curiosity in how this localized adaptation of The Purge is going to play out. Assuming things settle down by-and-by and the local drug traffickers get eliminated, the Philippines will have to secure their borders against smugglers. Will customs officials at air- and seaports be conducting summary executions?
One of the channels I follow on YouTube, Seeker Daily has this video on the subject of the OP, if anyone is interested. There is also a follow on video about how the Donald Trump of the Philippines came to power.
Who would have thought that setting up Death Squads could have lead to negative consequences?
I mean, it just stands to reason that if you allow paramilitary groups to murder people with no oversight, it would work perfectly. You eliminate the bad people, and then everything settles down, only with the bad people gone.
Let’s take a look at what Reporters Without Borders (RSF) had to say in response to a press conference from Duterte earlier this summer with my emphasis added.
Oh and they they rank 138th in the RSF World Press Freedom Index.
The country already had issues with press freedom and violence against reporters. Now they have a President who is okay with them being assassinated for being a “son of a bitch” and claims the appropriate response to perceived defamation is violence. That President has shown a willingness to use extra-judicial violence on others.
Why would I trust anything Phillipino journalists have to say about Duterte and extra-judicial violence?!? He basically put them on notice of possible violent repercussions before he started his extra-judicial killings.
If you don’t trust the government with the power to conduct arrests and trials, how do you trust them with the power to kill people?
Once the government starts solving its problems by killing people, do you really think it’s going to stop half way? Right now they’re killing criminals. Pretty soon they’ll be killing people who object to the killings. Then they’ll kill people who want to vote for somebody else besides the people in power. Then they’ll kill people who are rebelling against the government. Then they’ll kill people who might rebel.
It always goes that way. You start out killing drug lords and pretty soon you’re killing people because they wear glasses.
Well, A.) no, not really - they’re both just different brands of shitty and B.) it is in fact the government doing these killings, not some random mob.
I’m not saying that, you straw man slayer. I was only remarking that indeed the innocent are also being killed. There are reasons why societies should not resort to vigilantism.
Maybe because “presumption of innocence” and “fair trial” have meaning? But, hey, if you want to call vigilante murders justice, go for it. Personally, I think that’s a rather poor stance.