Free Debate Community
Educational
A group dedicated to the civilized debate and discussion of a wide range of topics, from the political to gaming and so on.
Vigilante Justice
(view original)
Post a comment
Description
Vigilante Justice, should it be the rule of the mob to decide some one's punishment for committing a crime, or should the decision be left to the court?
Depends who's on the end of that justice, mostly.
Some people will never get judged in court. Bush will never get judged for war crimes and NSA employes which are supporting the system will never get judged in court for breaking the constitution now that the US made it legal. (About the NSA being legal my thought is pretty much that murdering people was legal in Nazi Germany as well but it didn't make it any more right)
So for judging people that will slip away from a court whenever they can I think Vigilantes are the only people out there capable of dealing with such people. I sometimes wish there was an Assassin Order that could judge people for the crimes against humanity they commit.
Well, the CIA started to murder innocent schoolboys in the on the U.S. streets and nobody really cares.
When did that start to happen?
Also about the CIA abusing their power: En.wikipedia.org
I found out about this during the latest the tek episode where they talk about the possibility of a Skynet like AI. Youtu.be (The segment is about 15mins long)
Everything Bush did was within the law. That to me is more horrifying than his doctrine as president...
Mob rule is always a recipe for disaster. While the courts should be answerable to the people, one can't trust justice to the masses unless the masses are well-educated.
I would favour courts over mob rule. Remember, mob law brought us such things as lynch mobs and witch trials. Often with mob law, what the mob says, goes regardless of evidence. However, I do believe that the public should have some input on court proceedings. For example, that Texas scum child who ran over four people but got away with it because of 'affluenza', public outrage and opinion, in my view, should lead to his sentence being changed. That said, it should only really have an impact on cases where there is no doubt that an individual committed a crime, as in this case, as it would help prevent the rich slithering out of prison sentences. In cases where valid evidence is provided on both sides, the public can have a view point but the facts will decide the outcome.