Trump Reinstates Federal Executions

[Yukaphile]

I'm not even fucking advocating for vigilante justice here! I'm simply stating how sometimes it has served a purpose. We don't know, though, because humans are NOT mind-readers, so we can never know when somebody is 100% guilty. That's what makes ferreting out lies so damned hard.

[Riedquat]

And you're truly blind if you think vigilantism can't be useful in some cases. Granted, they may be very rare cases, but then, would you feel sorry if somebody had killed OJ? Not even tortured him. Just shot him after the trial ended.

The only time it could possibly be defended is in a Mad Max-style world where everything has completely gone to hell and there's simply nothing else, or maybe one where the system is deliberately systematically flawed (although quite possibly not even then because it'll be more likely to provoke a backlash than change in that system).

[Yukaphile]

Why? Law and order is not precise and won't be for centuries. Ever see that old movie Eye For An Eye? That's not wrong, that's JUSTICE. The courts failed to find him guilty, and he was guilty. I ultimately don't care about law and order as a means to get "justice" because justice is a myth, imo, so much as a way to keep our society from descending into lawless anarchy where we resort to our base instincts. Look at any war-torn region and you'll see this to be the case. And that's necessary, but sometimes so is bending the law to get what you need done. Especially because laws are imperfect. They are ethics our leaders think we should stick to. It is not totally 100% moral. Like how prostitution is outlawed virtually everywhere but Nevada, really. What's legal is not the same as being moral. It's just there as a firewall to keep society running, and in that respect, since justice is still a concept we have not yet completely mastered, given the high number of people in our own jails who have disproportionate sentences or killers and rapists go scot-free, it's okay to bend the law sometimes. The big problem I think you have here is that people are too emotionally-charged to make the proper decisions on how to undergo vigilante justice. That's why I've cited Batman, but he is impractical, admittedly, because he will research the problem, he will devote insane backup plans to solving said problem, and compensate with his tech or his strength. Batman, like justice, is fictional. And until we have 100% justice, we will never have a perfect world, so vigilante justice is something I will support, as long as it's not just revenge. Though sadly most would give in to revenge calling it "vigilante justice."

[Riedquat]

Why? Law and order is not precise and won't be for centuries. Ever see that old movie Eye For An Eye? That's not wrong, that's JUSTICE. The courts failed to find him guilty, and he was guilty....

The big problem I think you have here is that people are too emotionally-charged to make the proper decisions on how to undergo vigilante justice.

No, the big problem I have is that you appear to think that you don't need courts to determine guilt, that you can say "well, they've got it wrong so I'll mete out my own 'justice' instead." Do you not grasp that to do that you absolutely have to demonstrate that you're capable of getting it right more often than the courts do?

Heaven help anyone who gets framed in your world.