Is vigilantism against sex offenders good?
|
Vigiliantism requires no proof. Often it only requires accusation. Touch on that point in your paper. The purpose of justice is seen either as reparative, restorative, or punitive depending on who you ask. But all three of those, for either to be truly effective and just, requires proof of wrongdoing. Accusation alone is an insufficient basis for punishment, because accusation is so often not rooted in fact. First, the facts must be verifiably established. Then, the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. For example, under the law (which vigilantes do not follow, by the way, yet they claim to uphold), groping someone's butt is a sexual offence. But is it as bad as raping a child? Of course not. And so, when we say "sexual offence", it carries severe and sickening connotations, but it is perhaps not always as sick as we imagine. If vigilantes were allowed to "punish" "sex offenders" at will, how long do you think it would be before someone who, for example, went to an over 18 club and slept with a 17 year old who didn't get ID'd at the door, would be severely hurt or even killed for their apparently sick offence? You see, these are why we have due process and law. And don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything in the law. There are cases of child rape where offenders are out in a matter of 10-20 years. This, I believe, is fundamentally flawed. And I would have no sympathy were a prolific and sadistic child sexual predator killed. However, that must be met with a burden of proof to be sanctioned. Otherwise mere accusation is cause for execution. 1
point
Do I support vigilantism? No. Do I feel bad if a proven child molester is killed? Also no. It's imperative that we as a society don't feel we have the right to resort to vigilantism when we feel slighted over something, however I can't in all honesty say I find fault with a parent seeking vengeance against a person who beyond a shadow of a doubt, harmed/molested/killed a child. Sometimes sex offenders get more freedom than they deserve when their victim suffers for life. 1
point
Do I feel bad if a proven child molester is killed? Proof doesn't exist in life outside of mathematical theory. That's why courts themselves employ a principle known as "reasonable doubt". Even then, countless innocent people have been convicted over the years. Another problem I see here is that you are actually defining individuals in terms of the offences they have committed. That is, if a person commits this particular crime, or that particular crime, then that crime then becomes their identity. This is the type of dehumanisation which is at the heart of vigilantism generally. Did you really type this : It's imperative that we as a society don't feel we have the right to resort to vigilantism when we feel slighted over something Have you missed the Antifa violence on the Left Coast. By what you typed there is null and void in the cranium that your neck supports. 1
point
0
points
1
point
Is vigilantism against sex offenders good? Vigilantism against anybody is not good. One thing you should look into is the sharp rise in vigilante paedophile sting operations, and the harsh words the police have had to say in response. The fact of the matter is that the law is there to take action when criminal offences are committed. If a case comes to court where a defendant has been targeted by a vigilante group then a good lawyer would actually be able to get their client off by arguing entrapment. Hence, these types of operations often do more harm than good. |
