Vigilante
Justice: Justified?
Sparked in large
part by the recent release (and
viewing) of movies such
as The Brave One and
Death Sentence, I thought
I’d take a slightly closer look at the idea of vigilante
justice in modern society.
First, what is vigilante justice? By definition, it’s a
person or group of persons who take “law enforcement” into
their own hands, as they feel official forms of regulation
are inadequate. I use quotes for “law enforcement” because
it’s kind of hard to enforce laws such as preventing murder
when you’re murdering people as you see fit. Perhaps a
better definition to work off of would be to define
vigilantes as those who decide write and wrong, and act as
judge, jury, and executioner in one fell swoop. This is the
typical view of the vigilante, and that’s the assumption
we’ll work on the rest of this article.
Vigilantism, whilst usually looked down upon, is in reality
probably closer to how society used to work, when we were
fewer and smaller in number. The members of society would
act as the law & the enforcers, and those that were in
violation would receive quick and decisive punishment for
their actions. We’re not talking 100 years ago, not even
200 years ago, we’re talking basic civilizations, formed
around huts & hunting parties. In these closer-knit
communities, those who did not abide by the standards were
a realistic threat to the survival of the whole troop. And
time spent debating the issue or filing paperwork is time
left to the perpetrator to continue actions unsuitable to
the tribe.
So how did we go from vigilante as a way of social
preservation to shunned? With the advent of larger and
larger civilizations, enforcing order across sometimes
large geographical boundaries, it becomes necessary to
codify rules, write them down and spread the same
enforcement across the entire region. However this
introduces a certain waiting period. If laws are
complicated enough that we have specialized services
supporting them and identifying them, then we can say that
the laymen are typically not equipped to navigate the
myriad codes used to uphold their society in order. So we
pass off judgment to these special entities, which require
procedure for the protection of the individual from false
prosecution (add transparency as well). This procedure
produces a lag time between infraction, judgement, and
punishment.
Now we have a system that is theoretically capable of
handling a much larger social base, ensuring that “justice”
is served despite all else. Since each person is unable to
be the judge, and attempts at such behavior themselves
stand to prove an infraction of the code, average citizens
are more apt to leave the perpetrator to suffer their
punishment.
Well in a perfect world, of course infractions would never
happen. In a slightly less perfect world, the system
devised to keep order and punish those who infringe on the
rights of others would do so swiftly and “justly.” And
indeed, it’s this less-than-perfect world we strive for
with our system. As such, vigilante justice is frowned upon
as breaking the covenant that the
system is right, and
breaking from that could lead to the widespread unravelling
of society as a whole.
This is not a superficial fear, it is very real, in a
sense, as society
is by and large
tied to adherence of the many to the rules of few.
And with that in mind, it is easy to see why vigilantism
could be frowned upon. It’s the essence of destroying the
system. It’s in a way, anarchy. I would doubt that
vigilantes see themselves as anarchists, I would imagine
that they are driven to seek the proper ends for their
targets as they see fit, but the problem lies in the fact
that that it is hard to balance their desire for “right”
with the need to conform in order to survive. For at its
heart, vigilantism is about the swift insurance of survival
by the few. However, our social norms are dictated by the
survival of the whole, and by extension, the very system.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, and as of yet we’ve
yet to cover
why vigilantism
exists as an idea. If the system works, all should be fine.
If the system works…
The problem arises when the system fails or is seen to
fail. Now we have a case where the people don’t have faith
in the system, and feel that “justice” will not be served.
Vigilantism evolves from the fear of the few that the
system has become powerless to help them. If you can’t turn
to the cops (because they’re crooked or too busy to worry
about your petty life), then what do you do? Who do you
turn to? You turn to yourself and perhaps others like you:
you take matters into your own hands. You find the bad guys
and girls. You punish them. You give them the judgement
that the system was too bogged down to offer. You tell
yourself that this is “right,” and had the system not
failed, this is the end it would have come to. You seek not
reparation, but rather you seek the execution of judgement
on those who are deemed nefarious. You seek punitive
action.
It’s not a matter of whether systematic justice or
vigilante justice is better than the other. Each has a
place, and vigilante justice is merely named and connoted
in such a way as to express that it’s the antithesis of the
systematic approach. In reality, it’s only an issue if you
value the systemic lifestyle. Then you have to question, if
vigilantism ever really justified?
MAYBE YES
I would say that
in large part, the issue stems from what I would call the
number-one problem facing the world: overpopulation. Too
many people. Yes the system works, but only for so many
people. The same as a freeway is a fast transit system, up
until it hits a certain threshold. When the justice system
was devised, population was far less, and judgement by your
peers was a good idea. You were alloted a fair trial, and
judgement awaited those who had wronged. But as the society
grows, the number of nefarious acts grows with it, however
the system does not grow at the same rate. Now, you have
the same pipeline, yet you’re trying to process. The reason
that people go and see movies like The Brave One and clap is
that they feel the pangs of the reality that may be:
that the system itself, while designed to protect the
constituents, has lost any sort of empathy for the
people it’s designed to protect. Thus, so bogged down in
their own paperwork, once people become a file number,
there’s less internal incentive to help out anyone. The
justice system becomes a large cesspool of people hating
the work they do, processing files, each not unlike the
one before or after it, and the desire to help people –
the original pull of the design – has faded.
And the awareness of this is not limited to just average
citizens. I would say it’s a fair bet that the people
concerned with less-than-stellar activities are fully aware
as well. You see it on TV, you see it in movies, the talk
about how it’ll only be “2-3 years before you’re back on
the streets.” It’s no secret the system is overrun, and as
such the baddies have figured out how to work it.
So if the system can be gamed, then who’s really safe?
That’s the mentality of many who feel vigilantism is
justified. If no one’s safer by way of the system, then
something needs to be done to safeguard themselves &
others. Perhaps they can be the upholders of peace and
justice…
If a vigilante takes matters into their own hands, and word
gets out? If the bad guys don’t fear the system as a method
of punishment, surely they fear swift, decisive justice
that may be levied by any one person
on the spot. This is the
hope. And there’s truth to it, as well. It’s also the
mentality behind the idea that “a gun-toting society is a
polite society.” Because, if you are facing certain death
at each moment for ill-behavior, chances are ill-behavior
will be less likely. Don’t believe me? While riots do
happen at prisons, by and large they are few and far
between, because they are captives at gunpoint, and
ill-behavior towards the gun-toters results in severe
consequences. There’s a reason the guards have guns, after
all.
Ask yourself a question: If you watched a loved one killed
mercilessly, would you be satisfied that the murderer was
sentenced to prison, would that be justice enough for you?
This wasn’t an accidental death, it was deliberate. Would
you be OK to see them live, 3 meals a day, clothed, bedded,
and washed? Whilst your loved one is no more? Maybe you
answer yes, maybe you answer no.
Would you be able to say that those who threaten others’
safety for the sake of material goods deserve to be “taken
care of,” with soft comfy prison beds? If you were accosted
yourself or watched someone else be accosted, threatened,
possibly injured so that someone could take for themselves
what was not rightfully theirs, would you be OK with
letting it slide, saying “we’ll just report it to the
cops,” and let them deal with it? What would you do, if
knowing that the perpetrator was going to hold a
grudge,
and be back on the
streets shortly to seek their revenge? Maybe you say yes,
maybe you say no.
This is how the vigilante thinks. The bad guys are going to
do it anyway, so why not seek
actual justice? Rather
than rely on a system that is not able to protect you,
protect yourself. Stop the bad deeds. Stop the perpetrators
as they attempt their deeds. Let word spread, let fear
spread throughout the kingdom of criminals that their next
underhanded act may be their last. Let them guess who’s
going to give them their “comeuppance,” let that thought
roll around in their heads, and feel the shift of power go
from those that subdue the will of the average joe, to the
average joe who is willing to take matters into their own
hands.
And why not? I’d have answered “no” to both questions
above, myself. I would be more than willing to give to
someone else immediately what they would have given to
others, or myself. People push others around because they
can get away with it. Stop them from getting away with it,
and suddenly the pushing-around goes away. I venture to say
that for a large majority of criminals, they engage in that
behavior because they can get away with it. They are
willing to suffer the consequences of their actions if they
have to, but what the average joe fails to realize is that
these people don’t want to work for middle-class, when they
can non work at all and still have low-class. And their
punishment, should they ever get caught, is to get stalled
through a system that will more than likely put them back
onto the streets to act again in short order, or “put them
away” for a slightly longer time, during which they will
get to hang out with all their friends who got caught, too.
It’s a world that we don’t know, and a world that we can’t
know. We have higher expectations, and the fear of that
world keeps us from subverting the rights of others in most
ways, as to avoid seeing the realities of it. Our platform
is shaky, and too much study may reveal its flaws.
So vigilantism could be seen as a way of the average
citizen to shift the balance of power back to those who
would otherwise obey the rules. After all, the system was
designed to protect those who would otherwise not really
contemplate infringing on others. We don’t make rules to
punish good people, we make rules to keep those that might
toe the line from stepping over it. We outline consequences
so that we can show those that would otherwise try to
subdue the basic and natural rights of others what will
happen should they follow through with their conceived
actions. And if the system fails to provide what it’s
supposed to provide, namely a deterrent for the nefarious,
then why not adopt a different system? Why not give the
power back to those that define society, those for whom the
social structure was created? Those that play by the rules?
Why not vigilantism as savior? Why not?
MAYBE
NO
The single issue
with vigilantism as savior is that it’s as flawed as the
system it bucks. Looked at critically, it’s philosophically
and logically faulty, namely falling prey to the slippery
slope. If I judge that you are bad and need to die, who’s
to say that you cannot judge me the same way? Who’s to say
which person
really broke society’s
standards? Only society, collectively, and one man or woman
is not, by those standards of definition, capable of such a
feat. And if you can judge me immediately, then who’s to
say that you cannot be judged immediately? Surely enough,
if everyone took vigilante justice to heart, walking around
passing judgement at their whim, what would be left?
Society would crumble as anarchy set in. Hell, if everyone
took up vigilantism as savior, it would be the definition
of anarchy, as everyone set their own rules, and simply
offed everyone that did not conform to them, until they
themselves were offed.
At which point, those few left behind would naturally
decide to put down their arms, and develop some sort of
system, a fair system, to make judgement calls as to
whether society’s values had been trampled, and what to do
about it. All this, to avoid the savageness of
“vigilantism” in full swing. And suddenly, we’d have a
system once again in place, to keep the average joe safe
from his peers…
THE
REAL DRAW
Our society’s
fascination with vigilantes is strange yet logical. On the
one hand, one would question why we are drawn to a way of
achieving justice that is no more than an action. After
all, vigilantism is really just the tool of execution being
wielded by those who feel they are qualified to judge by
society’s standards. They feel they are “right,” and
subsequently their immediate judgement is as it should be.
On the other hand, assuming that someone who
does conform to
society’s standards of right and wrong is wielding the
tool, then yes it does serve to strike fear into the proper
hearts, and shift balance to the more-good of society from
the more-bad of society. This is good, and is the main goal
of those actively pursuing its ends or those merely
fascinated with its agents.
And that in essence is what the draw is. We want to seek
out true justice, and we like to look at the positives of
vigilantism, ignore the bad, and combine that with the good
our our system, to cover up the inherent bad it contains as
well. To imagine taking up the social reins, having agents
of the system that
are qualified and
capable of immediate judgement, and then to dole out that
justice accordingly. Indeed when we are presented with
these stories – real or fictional – we don’t imagine that
someone is hampering justice with their actions; that’s not
justice, that’s criminal, after all, which really I think
shows the ends we’re after, and vigilante justice is a way
for us to imagine, at least, escaping the boundaries &
faults of our typically-preferred system, and instead
install the positives of another in their place.
THE REAL ISSUE
The real issue
lying beneath the surface is one of philosophy. Who is
right, and how is that defined? There are a rather lot of
philosophical ideals that can be used as guide, such as
libertarianism, utilitarianism, etc. How do you define
what’s “right” and “wrong,” and and what to do about it?
I personally believe that numbers make right. It’s about
numbers. Social norm, right and wrong, are merely defined
by what the majority of the society in question believe it
to be. Standards change over time, and surely the voice of
view can influence the thoughts of many, but that does not
preclude the overreaching notion that social norms are
defined by the desire of the many. If more people than not
believe cannibalism is wrong, then society will define that
as a bad practice and define rules and punishments about
it. If society decides that cannibalism is right, then they
will again define rules and punishment around it, though
not in a negative fashion “Billy, why aren’t you eating
your father? No uncle unless you finish your dinner”).
Thus, “vigilante” could be seen as most definitely a great
thing. After all, we term them vigilantes only if they are
doling “justice” as we define it onto the criminals we feel
deserve what they got. Were news of this person’s actions
to not fit with our sense of moral right, then we would not
term them vigilantes, but criminals or gang members. As the
saying goes, “one man’s patriot is another man’s
terrorist,” and I would say that the ideal there applies
here. To those served by the agent, most definitely they’re
not vigilantes giving out justice, but criminals infringing
on their right to survive. To the citizens fearing those
served, our hero is given the title “vigilante.”
A
SIGN?
More than
anything, our fascination with vigilante justice shows that
our system is indeed broken. It’s a sign that we have lost
faith in our system to provide adequate and timely
protection. To what extent it is broken is hard to say, but
to try and say it is not is to ignore the signs, such as
those lightly outlined here. What needs to be done to fix
it, to restore confidence and take away the moniker of
vigilante from the killers? What is required to get the
regular folk to let the specialized individuals do the
work, or to at least stop imagining about doing it
themselves?
I can’t say. Well, as perhaps shown here, I am long-winded
enough to do it, but the issue is so complicated and
multi-faceted that in the time it would take for me to
elaborate on all that needs fixing, writing would have gone
out of style (Web 2.0 seems to show
it already has to an extent.) I have ideas, I have plans
I think could work, but they are not little nut-and-bolt
changes here and there, they require reworking things
from the top down, to fully address the issues. Sort of
cutting off the dragon’s head, so to speak, as any less
leads to the same ends we have now.
THE HUMAN CONDITION AND CRIME & PUNISHMENT
One of the
reasons we seem to spiral towards these sorts of
entanglements is due to what I believe to be the
“Wickedness of Man,” or more specifically, our ability to
find a loophole and exploit it. Indeed, write a rule to
stop a problem and create 2 more seems to be the way. For
every rule that in codified to protect a “basic,
fundamental right,” we create 2-3 or more misdemeanor
violations. Each of these and their own violations ties up
resources that could possibly be better used to tackle the
real issue, the root reason the root rule was enacted in
the first place. If only we could get beyond our seemingly
relentless drive to find a way to outdo ourselves with
language & definitions.
IN
PARTING
There is no real
answer to vigilante as savior, because the definition is
too rooted in opinion. One’s vigilante is another’s
criminal, and what side of the argument you find yourself
on may change depending on circumstance. Perhaps today,
you’re against the vigilantes, as they look to harm you or
those close to you. Perhaps tomorrow that will change, and
the agents acting will change as such to allow the
definition to fit your desire. Perhaps your opinion, and
subsequently your definition of the vigilante and even
right or wrong, will change.
But if one were to ask me personally? Do I believe in
vigilante as savior?
Yes. And no.