|
Vigilantism doesn't work, not because it's morally wrong, but because it's too hard to control and measure. Individuals have relatively few means of dealing out punishment and are generally unable to accurately judge (due to emotional investment) the proportionality of their responses.
Vigilantism isn't inherently different than state justice, both are forms of revenge upon a person who committed a crime. I fail to see why the source of the revenge makes it any more/less moral for that revenge to take place. The difference is in the state being a third party which is supposed to not be emotionally invested in the outcome and as such capable for more sound judgement. supposed be...
I'm pretty sure the only time I would consider turning to vigilantism is in the case of major harm to my immediate family (I'm not going to name crimes) where the case is tossed out on technicality. For instance letting the person walk because of an officer's failure to obtain a warrant. While (I think and please don't go there in this thread) it's necessary to keep the justice system honest, I couldn't let it go if the guilty party was known to me and unpunished.
__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.
|