No. Vigilantism is not preferable.
I’ve got a little list.
I do hope I am not on some one else’s little list. :dubious:
so just sayin because in the us sharia doctrine dosent get enforced and most us moslems are considered corrupt by the Arabian imams that they should go around forming death squads to clean up corruption at the us mosques?
Or what if someone more intelligent that the vigilantes,street gangs manages to take them over and go after his enemies based on what ever perceived slight he can imagine and then once he takes over the legal system he can just kill the vigilantes and say hes restoring law and order … I think that’s happened before but I cant remember where …
That’s where that type of thinking can and usually ends up …
The ‘killing people because they wore glasses’ example I gave wasn’t just made up. They really did kill people for that in Cambodia.
It’s not like this is a new idea. We have plenty of examples of death squads.
It doesn’t work. It turns neighborhoods into war zones, increases crime, and nearly inevitably turns into political violence. We have dozens of examples, and none of them end well.
I can’t believe I even have to say this, but death squads are a bad idea and an exceptionally poor substitute for a criminal justice system.
So you think a society run by organized crime and drug lords is preferable to rough justice?
Not her necessarily but unless you can prove more innocent death as a result of the extrajudicial killings than when drug dealers ruled the streets, you are only looking at one side of the equation.
So they should decriminalize crystal meth and set up an independent commission to identify and remove corrupt elected officials? So how does the president do that without the cooperation of a corrupt legislature?
Who gets to pick the members of this commission? The President?
What do you do when all the really easy palatable options, either don’t work or are politically impossible.
Interesting article in The New Yorker. Compares Duterte with the Stump.
Rodrigo Duterte’s Campaign of Terror in the Philippines | The New Yorker?
Based on the reported past of the current president what we have is virtually one crime boss that is consolidating power right now.
What one usually gets from that is corruption and crime with official seals. Dictatorship usually follows.
An equally valid question is, “Who gets to pick the guys to kill?”
If the government is in league with drug dealers, would they not kill people who kill drug dealers?
So 138 out of 180 (USA is 41). That’s not good, but India is 133, China is 172, Russia is 148, Israel is 101, Mexico is 149, Turkey is 151, etc. Do we think that these are also journalistic black holes and disregard news reports coming out of those places?
Yes, because journalists as a group are easily intimidated and don’t spread news about government lies in places like Russia and China where they are mean to reporters. :smack:
Well, I don’t but these folks in the Phillipines seem to trust Duarte who maintais a 90%+ approval rating despite all killings. Perhaps some of those being killed are horrible people that needed killing.
We do that every time we go to war.
There is certainly a slippery slope issue. But as long as they maintain an open and honest democracy… Do you have some evidence that the democratic process is being subverted? That there is some sort of horrible bias or bigotry being exercised in determining who is being killed?
cite?
And do the killings have to be extrajudicial or would these killings be a problem no matter what?
I think that Dutarte seems to have made a good case for saying that he is not really part of the established government. People there seem to trust Dutarte in a way they don’t trust the government in general.
The innocent were being killed on a daily basis before this. Do you think there are MORE innocents being killed by the vigilantes than by the criminals that they killed?
The entire history of death squads. I can think of a dozen times this has tried off the top of my head. “Hey, let’s just kill the people that bug us” is not a new idea in politics.
Not surprisingly, extra-judicial violence has a long record of not being particularly helpful to law and order.
Ah so you are just assuming they are innocent but for all you know they could be child raping, drug pushing, slave trading, murdering thieves.
So you think the self defense leagues in Mexico (so far the only real speedbump the drug cartels seem to run into in Mexico (it certainly doesn’t seem to care much about the police, justice system or even the army)) should all stand down and put away their guns and go back to letting the criminals rape their daughters, kill their sons (or press them into service as a soldier in their drug wars and turn them into criminals) steal from them, beat them, kill them, etc?
cite?
There is no evidence for what you claim here.