Willravel

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/us...html?src=twrhp

This man, as a child, was himself sexually abused and had his little brother sexually abused by a priest in my own town. The priest was not sent to jail and continued to hold a position in the church for at least several years (settlement was in 1998 and he only retired in 2001) after being discovered. He was allowed near children. He was allowed to remain a moral authority in the lives of his parishioners. All that happened was the church quietly settled with the family and hoped for their quiet compliance with injustice.

The victim, William Lynch, was not adequately protected as a child. The guilty, Father Mcgarry, was not brought to justice for his crimes. Mr. Lynch decided eventually to take matters into his own hands and is now out on bail.

Do you believe there are circumstances in which working outside of the law is morally admissible? What is your take on the above specific case of vigilantism? Are there hypothetical circumstances in which you would consider turning to vigilantism? If so, what are they and why?

Personally, I do believe there are extreme cases which might require taking the law into one's own hands. The drug war in Mexico comes to mind as an example where citizenry need to take up arms because the police are in many circumstances impotent against the drug cartels.

While I certainly sympathize with William Lynch and I agree with him that justice was not served, beating up an old man is not justice, even if said old man is sick and committed horrific crimes in his past.

I would only consider turning to vigilantism if the police force is no longer in place and capable of dealing with out of control crime. I'm not a violent person, but society as it exists now requires certain agreed upon rules and those rules require enforcement.

Pearl Trade

Omerta: "Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, 'If I die, You are forgiven. If I live, I will kill you.' Such is the rule of honor."

Now, I don't believe that, but it incorporates vigilantism, so why not throw it out there.

I wouldn't have attacked the priest like they did, but I can see how some would think it to be okay to do so. Vigilantism can lead to very bad things (duh) if the vigilantes have no idea what they're doing. In the big picture, corruption and anarchism comes to mind if vigilantes were the only police force around. Are there any major vigilante groups in America? Are there any laws specifically for or targeting vigilantes?

Will, I'm interested in if you would consider the Minutemen on the US/Mexico border vigilantes. Your words were "I would only consider turning to vigilantism if the police force is no longer in place and capable of dealing with out of control crime." The Minutemen consider the illegal immigration problem to be an effect of the police force (government) not being in place and not being capable of dealing with the issue at hand. Given your past posting history (leaning liberal, if not full-blown) I predict you will be against agreeing with the Minutemen's vigilant cause. Do you see them as vigilantes?

__________________

Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.
Give me convenience or give me death!

Willravel

Yes, they're vigilantes. Vigilantism isn't about agreeing with the person or persons, it's about taking the law into their own hands. The Minutemen are certainly taking the law into their own hands.

Personally, I don't see what they're doing as particularly constructive for anyone, but I don't want to get too far off track.

Cavi Mike

This is not vigilantism. A vigilante is someone who avenges someone else's distress. He was avenging his own distress. Big difference.

As far as whether I think it's OK, it depends on whether or not the system properly disposed of the situation. Some are fine with monetary compensation, obviously this man was not. Decades after the event, he was still troubled by this. His entire life was ruined because of this man. Since jail time wasn't possible due to the statute of limitations, I say the system fucked up. This reverend would have gotten a proper beating and raping had he been put in jail but instead the system allowed him to stay here in the outside where he was protected.

William Lynch was in the right.

__________________
pearls ain't free

Plan9

Robert Deniro in Taxi Driver? Weirdo vigilante.

This guy? Just getting revenge. I agree with Cavi Mike.

You can be vigilante / revenge-getter all you want.

You just have to be willing to pay the legal price.

Life is not fair and neither is the justice system.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

FuriousAvatar

I feel like vigilantism and revenge are two different things. I know that technically what Lynch did is vigilantism, but if the reverend had gone to jail (in other words, justice was served), I don't think Lynch would feel much different. He'd still rage at this man in the same way, still want revenge for what he did.

I guess to me it's like this: Bruce Wayne is a vigilante, but he would have liked to find his parent's killers for revenge.

To answer the question, yes, I think vigilantism is necessary in some cases, such as those of self defense or defending loved ones.

__________________
“Consult not your fears but your hopes and your dreams. Think not about your frustrations, but about your unfulfilled potential. Concern yourself not with what you tried and failed in, but with what it is still possible for you to do.”
-Pope John XXIII

Plan9

I can play this: Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne fighting the Joker? Revenge. George Clooney's Bruce Wayne fighting Mr. Freeze? Vigilantism.

/Halloween + nerd

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Willravel

Not according to any dictionary or encyclopedia I can find.

Charlatan

Regardless, vigilantism is a very slippery slope. Justice is supposed to be blind. Vigilantes are anything but... I don't trust average citizens to fully understand the law and I certainly don't find them able to enact it.

That way lies lynch mobs and kangaroo courts.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Hektore

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.

ASU2003

I'm not sure it would take 35 years though like in the original story...

I support the victim in most of these cases. And there is crossing the line in how far you go with revenge. But I'm surprised that more of the kids who commit suicide by getting bullied don't take out a few bullies while they are at it.

To quote Chris Rock "I'm not saying he should...but I understand."

Martian

As an Internet Smart Guy who has read Plato's Republic I feel pretty well obligated to call this one out. There are many theories on what constitutes justice, but the common thread is that justice is regarded as a constructive force. This places it squarely at odds with vengeance, which is destructive in nature. Justice promotes (and is integral to) a harmonious society, while vengeance is not.

This guy beat the shit out of an old man, is what this comes down to. Not a very nice old man, and maybe he deserved it. But in the end what was accomplished here? No future crime was prevented. I'd be surprised if our vigilante friend even feels any better about the crimes committed once the dust has settled. So, what?

I can't condone acts of this nature. While "the system" is imperfect in practice, it's only through a state institution working for the good of society as a whole that I feel justice can effectively be meted out. Individuals are too capricious to be reliable.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

tasineah

I just want to point out that at the age of 65, this guy isnt too old to still perpetrate. I have worked with lots of kids who have been sexually abused by their grandparents and great grandparents, elderly neighbors, etc. And even if he isnt suppose to leave the grounds unsupervised, I have worked with victims whose perps had those same conditions.

just saying....

perps are also human beings and often where victims themselves. Unfortunately this priest matured during a time when things were kept secret and hidden away without any form of treatment or counseling offered. Not alot of treatment works but people who want it to work, work it to make it work. I am not excusing his behaviors. This is a high crime of legal, moral and spiritual issue. I just dont forget there is a human being attached to the lable of perpetrator. Which is why I dont agree with what was done to him.

Had it been my child? Actually my daughter was kidnapped by a volunteer at the local park when she was a teen. He had groomed her to get her to the point of kidnapping. By a fluke, the circumstances changed and he let her go. When i got the call I was a raving maniac. I had to be held down. I was as much of a mad dog as any actor could portray on tv but this was real and what I wanted to do wasnt pretend. I came to my senses, thanks to the people at work, got to my home, and we began a long process of healing for her, that still isnt closed up. Had he done anything to her? I doubt I would be sharing this with you. I doubt I would be holding the stance what was done to the priest wasnt right. But maybe I would. And maybe I would say what I did wasnt right either...but it was what I needed to do. And maybe not. Maybe I would have pulled it together and not hurt him.

:::flashing to her face that day::::

for the record, he lives in fear of me now. I did get a chance to tell him about my disection training on cadavers....in detail....

wow and all I wanted to say was 65 isnt too old...

Baraka_Guru

What Martian said.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Martian

I didn't say that he was too old to re-offend. What I said was that no future crime has been prevented. If he will re-offend in the future, getting beaten up by a former victim isn't going to stop it.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Willravel

One could argue that finally getting punished for his crimes could act as a deterrent, but if i remember my psych classes, deterrence doesn't have a good track record with pedophiles.

Pearl Trade

Like Will said, I know that with pedophiles you can't prevent them from commencing take two of their crime, but a beat-down would at least cause most people to think twice before taking their respective innappropriate action. Then again, most people aren't pedophiles, so this probably doesn't fully apply.

Martian, isn't justice vengeance, but it's neccesary and approved of and supported by the people? Basically what I'm saying is that justice is the good kind of vengeance (the only good kind, actually).

__________________

Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.
Give me convenience or give me death!

Jinn

A few ignored or omitted the first question, which is admittedly what caught my attention. I think the answer is quite trivial, and that is that it is most definitely 'morally permissible' to act outside of the law. One need only think of any case where something morally reprehensible has been legalized to know that civil disobedience or outright rebellion is morally justified.

On the question of a source for that morality, I'd say that most religious moral systems would allow (even encourage) acting outside the laws, especially when those laws run contrary to the morals of the holy text or Creator. For non-religious individuals, morality generally boils down to 'wellbeing of conscious entities' and so it'd be likewise morally permissible to act if the law was egregiously violating or allowing the violation of conscious entities wellbeing.

Myself, I take a step further and find that if I felt cheated by the justice system, and someone who had physically violated me was allowed free reign, I am certain that I would not only find vigilante justice permissible, but necessary. I think we'd have havoc if we encouraged it at a societal level, but in my own psyche I am certain that I wouldn't feel compelled to stop myself out of obligation to a legal code. My only consideration is whether I could extract justice without being caught.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Hektore

I don't seen any particular reason to define vengeance as destructive in nature, except to undermine my point. No offense to Plato, but it's not inherent to the definition of vengeance as I understand it. Perhaps my point would be made more clear if we went forward using the word retribution instead.

The point was, the difference between vigilantism and state justice is not the actions, but the actors. Yes, the actions taken in the name of justice by vigilantes and the state are typically different but there nothing inherent to their natures that makes this necessarily true. A person is just as capable of imprisonment as the state and the state just as capable as unjust murder as a person. Also the retribution that takes place can be constructive or destructive by either actor.

The question as originally asked was:
Which I took, in this context, to mean roughly "Is vigilantism inherently immoral?" Which, no, I don't think it is. I think that in some cases where the state fails to act or is incapable of acting there is a case to be made for people taking the law into their own hands. Occasionally a case comes up where we see it. Remember this thread? A woman got 4 years, which was later reduce to 6 months for killing her brother in law by shooting him 5 times, reloading and shooting him another 5 times because he had allegedly molested her daughter.

If they had been strangers on the street she'd be in jail for the rest of her life. Allowing vigilantism is not without problems, which you and I both mentioned. But it's certainly not inherently immoral.

__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

boink

if I was on the jury I doubt I'd find him guilty. it'd take a real good lawer to argue me out of that opinion.

__________________
when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way.

Shadowex3

For various personal reasons from my own past I want to support vigilantism in many cases where things are not possible for the system to handle. Priests protected by the church, surviving war criminals, people who for whatever reason are legally "untouchable"... I don't consider it vigilantism if its a "hot pursuit" type action like chasing the person who just grabbed your kids or stopping an in-progress crime of some kind though for the obvious reason of societal functionality.

Which is, really, why even though I may want to I can't support vigilantism. Firstly beating someone up and/or running them out of town just makes it someone else's problem, and secondly for every person that stops at that level there are probably at least as many people like me that would just quietly kill them and be done with it, and that just does not make for a functional society.

__________________

boink

I would add though, if the the guy was at lunch w/ me before beating up the Father, I'd advocate against it and encourage more prosecution I'd give a lawyer the $625,000 to make his life hell.

I think you could argue the victim got some closure and healing that $625,000 just can't buy.

not that it's a healthy or practical way of dealing with these things in general.

__________________
when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way.

Ourcrazymodern?

The statute of limitations should never apply to adults' handling of children. Having grown to adulthood should have allowed this victim to realize there were means other than violence to punish the sod. I can't imagine his physically encountering him took away any of his pain. Any revenge was hollow, & not vigilantism.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Zeraph

Vigilantism is when a one or several people try to right a wrong, and justice is when the group does.

helix_luco

that's very rare, even without the legislation that was put in place to keep it to a minimum. but it's an effective dramatic device, so the tv-smiths use it a lot.