Comments on: Against Vigilantism

By: Alan

Alan — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:53:08 +0000

Yeah, but rape + three squares and cable over rape + inhospitable island and probable death?

By: michael

michael — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:36:52 +0000

Huh? I was saying the exile thing wouldn’t make much sense. As for the 3 squares + cable, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/12/15/us-federal-statistics-show-widespread-prison-rape

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:52:19 +0000

Exactly – and surely a better deterrent to crime than three squares a day and free cable tv.

By: michael

michael — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:56:24 +0000

Right, but people in exile have families out of exile. And besides — this would essentially be a free-for-all prison. The people who would fare best might just be the most cruel, the most adept at manipulating and killing others. But why do they deserve to stay alive over just a “regular” criminal?

Then again, it might not be too different from prison after all.

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:56:18 +0000

Yeah – sad, but true.

What about the concept of exile? Being Australian this is close to our hearts!

What’s to stop communities shipping the worst criminals off to some horrible craggy island somewhere and let them fend for themselves? Not a paradise like Australia, but a genuinely hostile place with absolutely no further assistance from society, patrolled at a one mile distance to prevent anyone but official prison boats coming and going. Would that offer a stronger deterrent to crime than the current threat of jail?

By: michael

michael — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:59:13 +0000

As I said, unless they’re just killed. But having an effective death penalty (without trial) for virtually all crimes considered “serious” is exactly how it’s done in the mafia — and after a while even a lot of average supporters for this type of thing would start to lose their enthusiasm.

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:13:18 +0000

Yep, got to agree with your points above. Except the bit about bashing murderers and either letting them go free or jailing them. I wasn’t really considering those two as options.

By: michael

michael — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:18:08 +0000

Of course if this is the best we can possibly do then we’re screwed in terms of coming up with a much better society. Still, rates of violence are a fraction of what they can be in tribal societies where it’s done by consensus and bashing.

What I think is best is more of this but with more openness and accountability (eg. taping of most police actions for public record), and sane, responsive laws (eg. ending the war on drugs), better paid police, more police so that there are more of them out there and so that there will be a larger pool of trustworthy ones to rely on, and so that the profession isn’t positioned as a 2nd-choice career, etc etc.

In terms of a bashing being more satisfying, it’s pretty much reverting back to what countries with sharia law have, eg. if you blind someone you get blinded. Getting satisfaction from such retribution is not something to aim for — and I think most people are “advanced” enough to avoid it.

But I don’t think it’s cheaper — there’s no satisfaction in just bashing a murderer and letting them go free. Unless they are all just killed, you still need jail time so it ends up costing slightly more (with the added medical costs).

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:24:38 +0000

All good points, and well made. But sometimes the only thing that’s gonna work is a good ass-whoopin’.

Vigilantism against things that are universally considered bad – murder, rape, pedophilia, etc. – is often far more satisfying than any state “justice”, and, arguably, cheaper on the public purse. But as you point out, the possibility for systemic corruption is rife, not to mention skewed or varying perceptions of criminality.

So, what do you think is best? Is the justice system as we have it today, with it’s corruption and fallibility, really the best we can manage?