| Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Vigilantism: Good or bad?; LD topic, number 2 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 11 2009, 07:24 PM (345 Views) | |
| Askio | Feb 11 2009, 07:24 PM Post #1 |
Crit McGee on Speed
|
Specifically, this is another LD topic that is finally open ended and more...LDish one could say. Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. This is a bit of a touchy issue, as vigilante justice has been quite a mainstay of human justice for a great deal of our history. Though that has changed in the sense of most justice systems overall, there are still parts of it that adhere to that principal. (The castle law in florida being one example of that for me in a sense here at home) There is one philosopher and sociologist that's originally from Germany that comes to mind when dealing with justice. From that, I more or less created this tidbit in a book of political science and philosophy right now. "When people come together to form a society, a government is naturally made to protect those people, in terms of a desirable society. Likewise, it is also desirable to maintain that society, so laws are instituted to protect the people of the society, both from the government, and other people of the society that is humanity as a whole. The concept of Justice is then made to determine the difference between the innocent and guilty, a concept that I remain skeptical of, seeing if all men are created equally in the eyes of our great creator, then one human should not have any right to declare themselves superior as to make themselves the will of the people as a whole, and inflict judgment upon our fellow man. However, since upon entering a society, be it permanently through birth or choice, or simply remaining there as a guest, the people have consented to this form of punishment, and though the laws vary, the consequences of actions that make one guilty are none the less well established and public knowledge if one simply cares to look, which, though I still feel skeptic of this system, none the less is more acceptable. " Small excerpt from me that I didn't feel like rewording. Anyhow, the idea of a justice system is established by the people to punish those who commit crimes, and its accepted. End of story. But the problem is that the justice system, particularly in a desirable society that can realistically be achieved by man, is simply an extension of the will of the people derived from a common consent to create, and follow the said laws. But legal and judicial systems change simply on the whims of the majority for the most part, meaning that they have and will always change with time as new eras usher in new standards to live by as the norms. With this idea, vigilantism is justified in a sense, because the large body supposed to enforce the will of the people has failed, they are simply enacting the same will that should have been done but wasn't. And since the majority will wasn't done, it will be members of the majority that will act. But vigilante justice, even though it doesn't have to be violent, often is. People are to erratic, to unpredictable, and in some ways, are just plain stupid to the point that its pitiful. Justice isn't really done, because people blind themselves with revenge, which I believe is an illusion people use to fool themselves into thinking they are doing justice, when in truth they are making the world around them burn with no regard to it. Now, there have been some examples of good justice being done by one person, but the reality of humanity is that there won't be a hero every time. Most times, more harm is done than good when people do things on their own that involve a supposed justice. I suppose it simply depends on both the society that we're in, the current laws, and the individual or group that takes action, and the circumstances that will determine if its right or not. Circumstantial justice at its purest form. A scary concept I think. Well, there's my two cents for now. Have fun with philosophy, morals, justice, government, and other things until I get back kids. Edited by Askio, Feb 11 2009, 07:24 PM.
|
 Fire Emblem Online Askio: 9-1-1 | |
 |
 
|
| +Reaver | Feb 11 2009, 08:03 PM Post #2 |
Troll
|
Hmm... I'm going to argue in favor of vigilante justice. In many cases, the law will not step in properly for multiple reasons. Perhaps politics is corrupt, perhaps they cannot effectively step in, ultimately something prevents them from taking action. If an individual can end an injustice that the government cannot, it only makes sense to end injustice. Should the argument constitute authority, I feel as long as said citizen uses legal methods of ending said injustice then vigilante justice is acceptable when the government fails. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Conan O'Brien | Feb 11 2009, 08:51 PM Post #3 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
|
Depends on the circumstances. If I hunted down, tied up,and executed Osama Bin Laden, no one would care. In fact, the US government would literally pay me millions. I agree that justice and the justice system's authority comes from the people, but there's a reason it's codified. We all have very diverse ideas about justice. Some people think that killing an abortionist would save hundreds of lives a year, and call that just. Some thing that if an unmarried woman is raped, you are justified in stoning her to death. Some think that being rich is a crime, and that stealing from them to help the poor is okay. But if I was driving along the road and saw a high speed chase behind me between cops and robbers, no one would say I was wrong if I forced the robbers off the road. That's because everyone is agreed that it's wrong to steal, flee arrest, etc. Vigilantism, I would say, is only right if the government has specifically criminalized an action, but is inept at regulating it or prosecuting it, and the responses is proportionate. In the above case of killing an abortionist, if the Constitution designated the moment of conception as the start of human life and abortion murder, I would argue that surprisingly it'd actually be okay. Tricky subject. All things considered, I'd say vigilantes, usually not a good idea. |
~~Wind Sword
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
|
|
|
| Yzarc | Feb 11 2009, 08:59 PM Post #4 |
Coxian
|
Really, justice, law, vigilantism, and anything that has anything to do with enforcing rules, be it by prison, death or fines, all comes down to one thing for me, and that is whether or not a person poses some sort of threat to anyone else. Revenge is never justified, which is why I think the word "justice" is often unjustified, since I believe people use it mainly to describe vengeance. For example, bringing a rapist to justice by murdering him or killing him is, quite ironically, unjustified in my opinion unless he may rape again. If he will not rape again (like if he lost his penis or if he was imprisoned) then there is really no point in killing him except making yourself feel good because you've convinced yourself that he is a lesser being and actually deserves to die. No one deserves to die. Everyone has a reason for what they do, and regardless of whether or not you like that reason, it is still a reason that he or she acts that way. No one is simply morally inferior. People don't choose to be "bad." They become "bad" by various things, mostly due to upbringing, which they have no control over. It's like when we imprison people in the ghetto for using or selling drugs, when they wouldn't have been using or selling drugs (at least not crack) if they weren't in that position. And almost all people who commit sexual abuse have been sexually abused in the past. We're punishing them for being victims? They deserve it? Vigilantism is the worst, because if you say it's okay for some people, then it's okay for everybody, and if everybody and their mom decided to take to the streets with a baseball bat and a handgun then we'd have chaos. We can't trust everybody to do what's justified. |
  
| |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Feb 11 2009, 10:51 PM Post #5 |
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
Government exists primarily to defend it's citizens life, freedom, and property. IMO at least. With that being said, if the government does something contrary to those core purposes, then Vigilantism is justified. If the Government is in the wrong, it is up to the people to correct it. Government power comes from the consent of the people, so when it loses that consent, it loses its authority. |
| |
|
|
|
| Soja | Feb 11 2009, 11:06 PM Post #6 |
Gentle Water, Crashing Waves
|
We have "citizen arrest" laws over here. I kind of made one back in high school. Didn't really think of it as an act of vigilantism. As far as I'm concerned, if it involves protecting yourself or another person, vigilantism is completely justified. Also if you are sanctioned by law enforcement, aka a "bounty hunter." Acts of vengeance don't really fall under the realm of vigilantism. That's retaliation. |
Fusion Universe - FEF Fanfic Slayers Forth - Slayers Fanfic Smartest Member '06 & '07 & '08 & 'o9, Favored Debater '07 & '08 & '09, Most Popular '08, Manliest '08 & '09, Author of Nightmares, Scourge of the Luxon, Rules Lawyer, Nick's Former Hero, Crysta's Lover | |
|
|
|
| Conan O'Brien | Feb 12 2009, 12:55 AM Post #7 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
|
Citizen's arrest is part of the law though, does that count as vigilantism? Here's a hypothetical my roommate came up with: Lots of times, police have definite evidence against a perpetrator, which then gets thrown out for technical reasons. If there was definite proof that could never be used, say a thrown out confession to raping and murdering dozens of women, would you finish what the police couldn't? He said yes, I say probably not. I see what Yzarc is saying to an extent, but I'd say an instance where you are 100% sure someone will kill/rape again is highly unlikely, and theoretically impossible. |
~~Wind Sword
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
|
|
|
| Simon | Feb 15 2009, 02:46 PM Post #8 |
The strongest among you may not wear a crown
|
I doubt I could do justice to this by rewriting it in my own words. Agreed, completely, with the idea here. As citizens of the United States, we are bound to the Constitution if we expect it to protect us. One immutable right in it is the motion of a person being innocent until proven guilty. That alone makes the very idea of vigilantism committed against a person found not guilty an extreme threat to civil liberty. The issue is complicated when technical details prevent a surefire guilty verdict, but the fact remains -- the person is found innocent, and must be presumed innocent, if the Constitution is to be taken seriously. Remove that right, and you remove the validity of the Constitution. |
Previously: Ron DeLite, Simon
| |
|
|
|
| Dragon Hellfire | Mar 15 2009, 09:00 AM Post #9 |
Dragon Hellfire; three random words
|
What does everyone (or the major partition, at least) define vigilantism as? Somebody enforcing the law or somebody trying to enforce the law? The latter would be a "depends", since the set of all situations being defined can include both positive and negative attempts. The other hand would define vigilantism as an extension of the law, in which case the topic might as well be changed to "Law: Good or Bad". Seeing as we aren't talking nomology, it'd be impossible to say anything. What laws? What are the values of the community? This topic can't be resolved with the criteria currently present. Edited by Dragon Hellfire, Mar 15 2009, 09:05 AM.
|
|
.:FES:. Formerly: Juggernaut, FireBane 100% of BwdYetis don't care about your percentages. | |
|
|
|
| Simon | Mar 15 2009, 09:56 AM Post #10 |
|
The strongest among you may not wear a crown
|
Someone trying to enforce the law after due process of law. If you've seen Righteous Kill, the entire movie is basically a series of what I consider vigilante justice -- the two main characters hunt down and kill people who either committed a crime but escaped punishment on a technicality or didn't commit a crime but had strong cases against them, yet were acquitted. Another example would be if someone killed O.J. Simpson. Situations like those -- where due process, fair or unfair, has been administered, yet someone decides to take the law into their own hands -- are what I consider vigilante justice situations. |
Previously: Ron DeLite, Simon
| |
|
|
|
| Dragon Hellfire | Mar 16 2009, 02:13 AM Post #11 |
|
Dragon Hellfire; three random words
|
Whatever situation or time frame the person is responding based on laws, we're going to have define what the laws are in order to assess and weigh possible outcomes. If the laws follow nomology to a key, we get the uninteresting answer of "It's always correct/1/+/good". If we have a system of laws that's being represented by by one's spatial associations with the word "law", then it gets complicated. Not necessarily because the laws themselves present complexity, but because the laws are not consistent in all clients. wut laws |
|
.:FES:. Formerly: Juggernaut, FireBane 100% of BwdYetis don't care about your percentages. | |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Mar 16 2009, 04:02 PM Post #12 |
|
Troll
|
Now that I'm debating this topic at the state debate, I should get involved. I'll start with the Affirmative. Society, arguably, must uphold a standard of justice which ensures that we offer the same standard of justice to the minorities in society - be it the socioeconomic or racial minority. If the government has truly failed to enforce the law, a new minority arises which we must extend justice to: the unprotected. The Social Contract presented by John Locke permits that they may break the law, but his doesn't answer the question of should they break the law to uphold justice. I would like to frame this first idea under the mantle that ignorance is not excused before the law. If you drink and drive, even if you had no rational decision to run down a person, you are held fully responsible for your actions: you are assumed to have made that decision rationally. If the law holds everyone to this standard, than we must assume that those breaking the law do so with full knowledge of their actions and full intent of the situation; the double-standard would provide a fatal bias to the situation. Now, since we know the agent - the individual relying on vigilante justice - acts within rational bounds, we know that he looks to protect the minority in society who is unprotected by the justice system. Therefore, he merely acts as an extension of the law even though he breaks it: as the ultimate goal of law is to bring about justice in society. Beecause such a person works to extend justice to the minority whom the law has failed, we can assert that vigilante justice is indeed a viable solution when the government has failed to enforce the law. However, this also eliminates the possibilty for self-motivated desire amongst those using vigilante justice. The agent acts only to uphold justice in society, not to take overt revenge nor to effectively alter his own position through shady means. Understandably, has the government fulfilled it's duties to uphold the law, then vigilante justice is NOT acceptable because the social contract remains. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Dragon Hellfire | Mar 16 2009, 07:08 PM Post #13 |
|
Dragon Hellfire; three random words
|
Premise: Laws are {+} Premise: Vigilantism is an extension of the law (and thus is restricted to lawful acts) I see both of these in your post. Although, the first one isn't clearly defined, nor is it supported. It's acceptable if your argument only applies to situations which laws are clearly defined universal truths and positives. Not realistic, but w/e. It provides deduction on /something/ at least. Anyways, you say it's acceptable for vigilantism to take places given that the government has failed to enforce the law. Well, the government is just an entity. If they failed to follow the law perfectly, are you saying that the vigilantism is ok to take place? That would make sense, but you specifically noted that if the government DOES do it perfectly, then vigilantism isn't acceptable. Well, of course it isn't. It's _impossible_. How could they extend something that follows the criteria for success completely? Unless they change the criteria, they can't. It's a pretty short argument depending on the terms. <___< |
|
.:FES:. Formerly: Juggernaut, FireBane 100% of BwdYetis don't care about your percentages. | |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Mar 16 2009, 07:41 PM Post #14 |
|
Troll
|
Laws in nature have to be beneficial to the governed body; if the opposite were true, the Social Contract would allow individuals to dismiss such laws because they violate the rights of life/liberty/property somehow. Furthermore, if you look into the philosophy of Civil Disobedience and the belief that an unjust law is no law at all, people can violate the law without comitting any moral wrong should the law be unfair in some way, shape, or form. The second, indeed, is a premise I argue for. If this doesn't get much discussion going, I'll switch to the negative in order to push my case. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Dragon Hellfire | Mar 16 2009, 08:10 PM Post #15 |
|
Dragon Hellfire; three random words
|
Laws of nature don't apply to this debate. They're irrefutable and following them always makes sense. Laws in nature are wholly subjective. Why is the sudden death of a group of people a bad thing? Why is our ideal lifestyle the ideal? Why do we fear death? Why would the human race ending be "bad"? With these subjective laws, one or more people could disagree. That's all that's necessary for deduction to be impossible. People can violate the law without committing moral wrong? Sure, if *their* morals don't specify that it's wrong. That is true for laws that aren't unfair, too, though. What did you mean by that? |
|
.:FES:. Formerly: Juggernaut, FireBane 100% of BwdYetis don't care about your percentages. | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
3:43 AM Nov 23
