the vast majority (over 95%, according to recent figures I've seen) of serious sexual assaults go unconvicted, maybe there are many more unreported.
i guess 30% of complainants could be liars but not up to and beyond 90%.
Does this justify me killing/harming a sexual predator (a la 'Hard Candy')? If official justice cannot provide, then should I?
Is it paradoxical that the crime most vilified in the media is that most excused in the courts?
Anyways, is the vigilantism depicted in such films as Hard Candy acceptable given our deplorable criminal justice system?
Whoah. You are asking a lot of very important stuff that isn't black, white or grey
and warrants more than a yes or no answer... I think it really depends on individual situations. Hoping you don't have personal cause to 'killing/harming a sexual predator'.
killing maybe ok
psychological torture like in hard candy - makes you a bad person
killing ok?
that's the worst isn't it? especially for an atheist. you're condemning them to no longer being. in hard candyd i sensed the 'tortuer' was a god like figure getting justice where no other mortal justice could serve
Revenge doesn't equate with justice.
hmm
i don't entirely think that film dealt with revenge. I think the 'torturer' was separate from the victim. i think this is more about the idea that we should do what we can as individuals to take on our civic duty where strictly formal avenues fail or are uniterested.
No, but it is a facet of justice
no don't worry
i'm not asking you to give me support for horrendous acts i'm just trying to get into the mindset of a vigilante.
although i do know of a number of guilty people who have been freed by criminal justice for those very acts.
..
Presumably the vigilante's motivation is the prevention of similar crimes? It smacks of utilitarianism, which can be used to justify any number of dubious things. So, in answer to your question, no, no it isn't.
the vigilante
may simply want to punish and give the victim validation that they are/were not lying which criminal justice will not provide. for example, if i were to print in a newspaper that i thought someone cleared of sexual crimes was actually guilty i'd be done for libel (potentially). i just feel so badly for victims that are obviously not liars but implicitly called that by the law.
obviously prevention of repeat crimes is important. but i don't know how it can be achieved.
..
That seems reasonable, but the problem is escalation - one vigilante sets a precedent.
I haven't seen the film, but I can't imagine why anybody without a personal interest in the crime would go to those lengths, unless they saw themselves as above the law.
s
'but I can't imagine why anybody without a personal interest in the crime would go to those lengths, unless they saw themselves as above the law.'
to me the law is about objectivity. even if that isn't the reality. you have this weird system of people who decide things on our behalf and to an extent i agree with that. because it would be worse if those directly affected got involved. like. when you see mothers of killed daughters screaming vengeance. they are so close they can't see the truth so a distant figure may be the best to decide. this may invalidate my argument below but what the hell? as people surely we should be interested in miscarriages of justice anyway?
Yes.
Arguing to shed light on miscarriages of justice is good.
But!
Can you remember when the News of the World went hysterical with the pedo stuff a few years ago? They whipped up such a frenzy, a baying mob hurled bricks through the window of paediatrician's house.
There are 2 fundamental flaws with vigalantism:
a) Most of the general public are as thick as shit.
b) The faction of the general public that take part in vigilanism, just enjoy violence, full stop. That is the only reason they smash up the face of a suspected paedophile. They love violence.
The only good thing to come out of the News of the World hysteria was the Brass Eye special.
Yeah true
I just think that it's easy to have an opinion but imagine if you were in a situation where you yourself were directly affected. There is no way of knowing how you would react until you are in the situation. I hope to god something like that never happens to me or people I know... Hmmmmmmm. I'm not an advocate of violence for the record.
of course
I'm trying to point out the paradox. the media/general 'thick' public as you call them go insane for a bit over a couple of cases but in reality the vast majority of guilty people go free.
and this freedom is granted by jury trail to some degree. so the thick violence loving public are those that are letting violent criminals wakl free. I guess recent experiences are causing me to question the divide between the liberal and not so liberal approaches to crime
No.
Eye-for-an-eye justice isn't right. Violence begets violence. etc
never?
even when all other avenues have failed?
That's right.
if I murdered someone
in cold blooded violence
I would not think it a bad thing if someone disposed of me similarly.
unless you think that a killer/rapist is not defined by that act but can be rehabilitated. But how can rehabilitation change occur if there is no admission of guilt?
Well I am not a believer in biblical eye-for-an-eye thinking.
It's very short sighted, and reduces those wronged to the status of the criminal. If murder is wrong, then it's wrong whatever the motive.
You seem to be searching for some kind of validation that fucking people up as revenge for their crimes is right and good. But it's not, so you sure won't get it from me.
your words seem angry
i don't want validation i am doing that most dishonarable thing of playing devils advocate. but if its wrong to kill the killers that are freed what do you do to protect the innocents they may still go after and how do you give those already fucked over some peace of mind. this is the problem us liberals have to deal with
Not angry, just trying to be clear.
And yes, I see your point.
....
this is much too simplistic. you seem to be saying that the option 'should we kill those killers who escape retribution through the criminal justice system?' has two options with directly related consequences BUT you ignore the fact that we all differ in our views on what constitutes retribution.
A murderer could go to prison for 15 years , if I still regard this as unjust should i be entitled to kill him? If not, why not?
Should i be entitled to enact revenge for more minor crimes? Say one of my family or friends get killed by a reckless driver.
you are making the assumption that our standards on what justice is are absolute and universal and people only differ on enforcement but i don't think that is the case.
that was so unclear but...
..
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a place where you could imprison criminals for a duration proportional to the magnitude of their crimes?
Prison isn't just for rehabilitation, y'know.
prison isnt for rehabilitation at all
its for sedation - continuing the use of drugs and dehumanisation. im talking ideal worlds here, i guess
I remember
There was a young bloke who lived round the corner from me, who was alleged to have molested some kid a few years ago (this never involved the police) He of course had his house smashed up and was beaten senseless. It's worth pointing out that the four blokes who did this were the nastiest, vilest degenerates in the villiage, who had all crawled out of the last remaining puddle of the evolutionary gene pool. Boy did they love violence.
reminds me of straw dogs
a bit, violence for the sake of it and divorcing yourself from your own crimes.
but if a member of your family was fucked over and the law wouldnt remedy it, would you ijn principle?
well that's a different argument
I'm on about the violence loving scum who gleefully latched onto the News of the World's "Paedogedden" in order to carry out vicious attacks on suspected peaediatricians and feel like bloody heroes for doing it.
yeah they are idiots, fine
but there is a point buried deep there somewhere. why are they so angry? does the media control them that much or do they actually have experience of this system that largely frees very dangerous people. sit in a few court cases and watch the way such cases are dealt with and it would be very easy to understand their angry behaviour
The idea
of guiltless brutality without consequence is one which appeals greatly to human nature.
..
I think that vigilantism could only ever be justified if the intent of the criminal justice system is to fuck the victims over - but there's no way of knowing that.
They are driven by excitement of violence, not anger
I think the people i'm on about just have a very primal lust for blood letting, given half the chance. The News of the World stuff gave them half a chance, cos they felt society was on their side. It was this and the excitement of potential violence that spurred them on. A bit like football hooliganism i suppose.
The majority
being behind your violence (or your belief of this) must be a really powerful thing if that's how you think.
i thought brits were against the death penalty?
britain doesn't currently have the death penalty in law
= 'brits are against the death penalty'?
that is usually how it works...
i don't see a movement to bring in a death penalty?
anybody?
thankfully it's not very major
but there are definitely a fair few people in this country who want, or would consider voting for, the death penalty.
doesn't the uk already...
have a death penalty for extreme freakshows?
i thought some crime boss dude put up some reward for prisoners to kill some other prisoner who was recently convicted for some extremely horrific crime?
or was this in america?
that isn't really a death penalty though is it?
and i'm not sure. america?
do you actually
think that if there was a referendum on bringing back the death penalty for murder that people in this country would vote in favour of it?
i know that opinion polls suggest most people are supportive of the death penalty but giving your opinion to a pollster has much lower stakes than voting in a referendum. i'm actually not convinced.
he said 'brits' meaning 'all brits'
so if even one person votes for it, that's all i have to prove. and they would.
i think stevierob
is right. some people are permanently up for a fight and if an external source provides them with the moral justification for it then, why hold back?
vigilantism
can be philosophically justifiable, i'm sure. but the precedent set is clearly just an appalling one - particularly since people are so often wrong.
i also find your reference to serious sexual assaults a pretty troubling one. we know that rape, for example, is not an act of agression committed by anonymous lunatics on unsuspecting women late at night. in addition to that, as far as the law is concerned, rape needn't involve an unambiguous denial of consent or a struggle. i think to advocate vigilantism when the debate around this issue is so lacking clarity does represent pretty dodgy ground.
Interesting thread.
"the vast majority (over 95%, according to recent figures I've seen) of serious sexual assaults go unconvicted, maybe there are many more unreported."
What figures, produced by whom and calculated how? I'd be interested to see what the source is for how many sexual assaults there are "out there". And the overall conviction rates for other crimes by way of comparison. Just interested, like.
"Does this justify me killing/harming a sexual predator (a la 'Hard Candy')? If official justice cannot provide, then should I?"
The short answer: no. To maintain the rule of law is ultimately a more important goal than ensuring "justice" (I very much dispute the idea that retribution is "justice" anyway but, y'know - whatever floats your boat). I don't think this question needs to be solved with reference to moral philosophy anyway. Common sense surely dictates that encouraging the general public to invent their own punishments for stuff is beyond silly.
"Is it paradoxical that the crime most vilified in the media is that most excused in the courts?"
I dunno. Maybe. I don't know what that proves though. Sexual offences always have low conviction rates because it's usually one person's word against another. That certainly doesn't mean the courts are "excusing" offenders. Besides, the media has already succeeded in getting the level of recklessness required for rape / sexual assault lowered. Sexual crimes against women (particularly young women) are just about the thing the police do take that seriously, as well, so...
"Anyways, is the vigilantism depicted in such films as Hard Candy acceptable given our deplorable criminal justice system?"
In what ways do you consider our criminal justice system to be "deplorable"? Again, just interested. This allegation appears to have been thrown around a lot recently and I don't entirely understand it.