Vigilantism: Should be promoted?

-When the law and lawful punishment just isn't good enough.

In movies like "The Boondock Saints", "Spiderman", "Batman", "Saw", and "Saw II". Vigilantism is promoted. A vigilante is a person who takes the law into his or her own hands. Many people believe that vigilantism, especially associated with killings could lead to greater problems in a society.

I remember reading an article where Guatemala or Nicaragua (I can't remember which), drug dealers, gangsters, and junkies were starting to disappear for a couple of days until their bodies were discovered dead (usually by a fatal gunshot or fatal stabs from a knife), not only that but with very short letters. The Letters would contain phrases like: "I've been abusing myself." For a dead junkie, "I've been bad." For a dead gangster, and "I've hurt many lives." For a dead drug dealer. Even members of local mafia groups were starting to disappear, daily, one by one left dead with a note explaining their major sin in a brief sentence. I don't know why but I felt satisfaction when I read this was actually happening. Someone was causing fear amongst the ones who caused fear to the innocents. Gangsters and Mafia groups were afraid to be alone and began to travel in pacts. But that didn't stop the vigilantes, they were so good in getting their marks that they thing the government was behind the vigilantism.

In the movie "Boondock Saints", two brothers remember a sermon by a priest who says that evil is the indifference of good men. When the brothers tease a two guys from a russian mafia group they are nearly killed the next day by the mafia men. The two brothers decide to go buy artillery and start doing a major clean up of the most notorious gangsters and mafia members. In the end they take a out a major crime boss who was responsible for killing their best friend.

I've sometimes felt that the law did not do enough to protect citizens and let big criminals on the loose and most of the times a person vigilantism can clear that up. A great quote that could best match my feeling is: "The world is better with out them."

Vigilantism as a profession is not something I condone. Characters in the movies you described take things way too far. Vigilantism for a particular cause, one which the police are probably not going to be capable of handling while the danger is at hand, is something I would respect, and probably participate in if necessary to avoid or foil a crime. Key words being: "if necessary."

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. I understand the government's concern: people could get severely hurt pretending they're Batman. However, I don't believe that, just because someone takes out a person who's been physically harming them or someone they love, that they should be locked up.

I think that what the people in whatever country it was where the instance you mentioned, CT-, happened, did was very noble, but still extremely dangerous. People like that need to be taken care of, and if the government isn't going to do it, someone needs to. But I don't think tracking down drug dealers for sport is a very noble hobby.

Vigilantism is just another one of those ideas that is only good for fiction. Currently, I am reading The Stand by Stephen King and vigilantism is frequently found in the book, due to a collapsing society under the case of a “superflu”.

If we were to ever find ourselves in a lawless society like that of Deadwood or any fiction, then I would be for vigilantism. Other than that, I don’t think it’s the best of any ideas, since we do have a government after all.

As cool as this sounds..

I think it's best that we just let the government do their job (or try to do it). If vigilantism becomes a huge (how should I say this?) uprising, people might start to kill off members of the government or important members of society because they think that they are doing the world a favor.

So really, ther's a fine line between vigilantism and murder. Just because someone makes a mistake, doesn't mean that they deserve to die. In cases like murder, I do believe that death is an adequate punishment, but for drug dealers, well..half the time they're only dealing drugs to make a living, and it's not as if their forcing their clients to buy the drugs.

So yes, because of the possible confusion..I say we just let the government try and do their job to the best of their ability.

But as Nox said, if we ever find ourselves in a society without any form of government, well...

By all means, have at it with the vigilantism.

No. Vigilantism is in no way a good thing. Granted, in Batman the police were corrupt and all that, but if that were the case then 'Batman' should have appealed to a high authority that could have turned things around. Vigilante justice isn't justice at all, it's merely unlawful revenge.

Originally Posted by Sugaroxxx

I think it's best that we just let the government do their job (or try to do it). If vigilantism becomes a huge (how should I say this?) uprising, people might start to kill off members of the government or important members of society because they think that they are doing the world a favor.

I agree completely. That kind of thing rests solely on the opinion of the one who commits the murder. Vigilantism in my eyes is just as bad as any other murder- it's just another way of saying, "I don't like you. Boom. You dead."

The people who committed those aforementioned crimes, maybe they are being justly punished- but they're being justly punished without a trial. They're being killed because one person decided they should be.

Well, the kind of thing in Saw 1 & 2 is not a good thing at all. In fact, it's pretty dang evil. He kills for no reason other than he decides someone should die.

Daredevil is much the same, though not nearly as gruesome.


Spider-Man is a heckuva lot different. Spider-Man doesn't fight the law; he just helps out, putting only himself in harm's way.


Batman is... different.
He's a little on-the-edge. He's all for beating the living crud out of anyone he thinks deserves it. He'll literally do anything but kill. If someone like Batman were real, I might be a little scared.

That said, Batman rules!!!!

You guys have good points. In Saw I and II the vigilantism was too evil. Jigsaw killed people unworthy of life and that could have been cheaters, liars, and a whole bunch of unimportant stuff to die for. I wouldn't kill a drug dealer because he sold drugs in my neighborhood to kids, but I would try to get him locked up. I wouldn't kill a junkie because the junkie's life is already screwed up when you think about it. But a murderer, gangster, I'd take out if they ever did anything to me or my friends and family.

I had a topic like this with my manager and he said that if any of his loved ones were killed by a crazed murderer, and the murderer is not put to death, then to hell with paying taxes in the US. Since some of the tax we pay feeds the criminals in prison right now, and he says he wouldn't contribute to a criminal's health in prison.

My dad is not a person of vigilantism but if it's for a good reason then he would appreciate it. He prefers the "Robin Hood" type of vigilantism.

My mother is totally against vigilantism because she is religious and believes utterly that God will do worse to those who hurt innocents, thus, do not waste time wishing pain or death to those who hurt you or you loved ones, leave your vengeance to God and He will carry it out for you.

Originally Posted by CT-

-When the law and lawful punishment just isn't good enough.

In movies like "The Boondock Saints", "Spiderman", "Batman", "Saw", and "Saw II". Vigilantism is promoted. A vigilante is a person who takes the law into his or her own hands. Many people believe that vigilantism, especially associated with killings could lead to greater problems in a society.

I remember reading an article where Guatemala or Nicaragua (I can't remember which), drug dealers, gangsters, and junkies were starting to disappear for a couple of days until their bodies were discovered dead (usually by a fatal gunshot or fatal stabs from a knife), not only that but with very short letters. The Letters would contain phrases like: "I've been abusing myself." For a dead junkie, "I've been bad." For a dead gangster, and "I've hurt many lives." For a dead drug dealer. Even members of local mafia groups were starting to disappear, daily, one by one left dead with a note explaining their major sin in a brief sentence. I don't know why but I felt satisfaction when I read this was actually happening. Someone was causing fear amongst the ones who caused fear to the innocents. Gangsters and Mafia groups were afraid to be alone and began to travel in pacts. But that didn't stop the vigilantes, they were so good in getting their marks that they thing the government was behind the vigilantism.

In the movie "Boondock Saints", two brothers remember a sermon by a priest who says that evil is the indifference of good men. When the brothers tease a two guys from a russian mafia group they are nearly killed the next day by the mafia men. The two brothers decide to go buy artillery and start doing a major clean up of the most notorious gangsters and mafia members. In the end they take a out a major crime boss who was responsible for killing their best friend.

I've sometimes felt that the law did not do enough to protect citizens and let big criminals on the loose and most of the times a person vigilantism can clear that up. A great quote that could best match my feeling is: "The world is better with out them."

I do not condone killing unless it is in self defense. I do believe we could help law enforcement officials without going to beat the snot out of a gang member. Besides, doing that sort of thing brings about reprisals. Vigilantism is something that is interesting to read about but it really should remain in fiction.

No, because firstly its dangerous and I don't think any of us have the time money or super powers to do so. Secondly the crounalla riots shows what happens when the law is taken into the publics hands. It is subverted by various pressure groups or fringe dwellers (in this case white supremcist) and then used for their causes. What happenned was an all out free for all hurting many people that where not involve in the orginal incident that prompted these people to go after the orginal law breakers. At least with goverment sanctioned law enforcement they have to follow their own strict rules under the threat of the general publics scrtutiny and investigation (thus only in extreme cases can the law break the law). However if you can stop a crime on the spur of the moment. (e.g. stoping a shoplifter) do so, but preferable in the most non vilonet manner possible. Also keep an eye out, if you come into information about crime inform the authourities.

Finally I should mention the third way. Want to expose the falling of authority? Want to do something every day injustice? And then force change? Become a court jester and use words and images to berate and expose. Even if you offend your power only grows for how much more court jesters sprung up to mock those acting offending after the danish cartoon thing.

To sum up, vigilantism bad
spur of the moment heroism good
The court jester, he who can mock and suffer no retribution (if the system is working correctly ofcourse)

I think that the reason I do not promote vigilantism is because there is no one to check the vigilante. Usually I am against enforcement of laws in general, but the reason that I tolerate the police is because they do not have absolute authority. That is to say that the state has seperated it's powers amongst 3 branches. Sparing the civics lesson, a policemen would like to search your house without a warrant, but because he/she needs approval from the judicial branch, who's making decisions based on laws that have been passed, the policemen cannot do everything he wishes.

Originally Posted by Divine Dragoon

New Orleans is an example of chaos happening with lack of law enforcement. (I mean the mass robbing and raping and such, not the hurricane )

You have to consider the context though. These people had lived under the rule of law to suddenly have it stripped from them in a time of chrises. I don't think that there is ONE cause to the lack of ethics in LA, and if there were, I don't think it'd be the lack of law enforcement.

I personally do not approve of revenge. I think it is dangerous to have a vigilante because he takes the law into his own hands, therefore he decides his own laws against the criminal. Although I do believe that a person has every right to self-defense. I also think it is alright to try to help the police out- turning in known criminals and being supportive. It just goes too far when people proclaim themselves as judge, and jury against a criminal; or to abuse him in any way. If they do capture a criminal or try to fight injustice, they should turn the criminal over to the law.

Oh, yea, you just give a gun to some person and expect him to choose who has a right to live and who deserves to die.

Great reasoning. Locked.