For anyone who doesn't know what a vigilante is:

So what do you think of it?
I think it's a good idea,it can work.
Law doesn't always work,the police are uneffective and slow,crime seems to be increasing,at least where I am,if you could,would you become a vigilante?Do you think it's wrong or right?
And if you think it's right,how do you justify it?

__________________

Lemme answer this with an excerpt from a paper I wrote on the Boondock Saints and vigilantism:

I disagree with the way Duffy portrays the issue of vigilantism. Through his direction of the movie and its stylized scenes, it’s easy for the audience to get caught up in the film and be swayed towards supporting vigilantism. The real world, however, is not quite as black and white as he makes it out to be.

There is definitely some validity to Duffy’s message. While the government brings justice to many criminals, it also allows many criminals to walk free. Paul Smecker’s speech concerning the loopholes in the law that criminals slip through is true and exemplified in a number of cases. Ernesto Miranda raped and kidnapped an 18-year-old girl. In Miranda versus Arizona the girl identified him, and during police questioning Miranda even signed a confession. Still, he was soon set free after he appealed on a technicality: he was never made aware of his Fifth Amendment rights. Likewise, mafia don John Gotti fixed several trials and was acquitted a number of times before finally being convicted. Though O.J. Simpson may have murdered his wife, Nicole Simpsons he too was acquitted despite rather convincing evidence.

Such cases as these may appear as compelling arguments for vigilantism, but they could also be taken as the converse of the problem with vigilantism. With vigilantism there is a chance for innocent blood to be shed; with America’s legal system there is a chance for guilty criminals to walk free. While an error in vigilantism will directly result in the loss of innocent individuals, an error in the legal system can only cause indirect bloodshed of the innocent, if any. Justice may not be served, but that is a much smaller price to pay than wrongfully murdering a person that someone in this world loves and cares about.

This entire question of vigilantism boils down to the moral question of the value of a single person’s life. Are the lives of those hurt after a criminal has been acquitted worth the lives of the innocently accused? Is it immoral to sacrifice the lives of a few to protect or advance the lives of many others?

One value held by nearly all societies is that of the sanctity of life. Our own government adheres strongly to the belief of an individual’s right to life. Still though there are a myriad of examples in which the “greater good” prevails over a person’s right to life. One of the most recent examples is that of the War in Iraq. In many instances the welfare of the nation is put before the lives of a nation’s more numerous civilians. Soldiers are considered expendable if the security of a nation’s population is at stake. War is not thate only example, however. The field of medicine has also placed values on lives at certain times. Human guinea pigs have been used in the past to advance medical research, one of the most prominent examples being Hitler’s medical experimentations. The experiments were conducted with captive humans against their will; many were killed in what they claimed as an effort to advance medicine. Aside from medical advancement, many doctors must also make rationalized decisions about which patients should receive available organs and which should be left to perish.

Despite these instances which seem to support such sacrifices, I believe the answer to the aforementioned questions is no. Moral dilemmas like these are usually resolved through making two evaluations of the situation: a quantitative assessment and a prediction of the outcome. I do not agree with such quantitative assessments, however. Numerically comparing the number of saved lives to those sacrificed does not seem humane. No one man is in any position to sacrifice an innocent person involuntarily. The lives of those few people are just as important as the lives of the saved.

Furthermore, the prediction of the outcome of such dilemmas creates additional questionability. A prediction is just that--a prediction. No one can accurately foretell the results of such predicaments, and there is never any complete guarantee that lives will be saved due to the sacrifice. If there is any chance that a statement requiring the death of innocent people could prove wrong, that statement should not be acted on. The importance of this principle is exhibited in the American justice system--no ruling is ever made on a defendant until there is sufficient evidence available, and there must be undeniable evidence presented in order to invoke more serious sentences like capital punishment. While this may be the exact reason why Duffy feels a need for vigilantism, I feel that the extent to which this idea is present in the courts conveys just how important it is.

In conclusion, Duffy presents a thought-provoking, but ultimately deniable theme in “The Boondock Saints.” While one can find some truth in his message, his answer to the problem--vigilantism--is not truly reasonable. If one would opt for vigilantism, one would believe that the lives of those hurt after a criminal has been acquitted and the justice served those criminals is worth the lives of the innocently accused. This assumption is immoral, however, because it places a finite value on human life, which itself has infinite value. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a criminal will continue his life of crime after being acquitted or that his death will bring justice to those he harmed. While there are flaws in the American justice system, vigilantism and other such solutions prove to be more detrimental and immoral than the flaws themselves.

__________________

The main problem we run into with vigilantism is that no two people have the exact same set of values.

__________________

That problem has also lead to many wars, PP. It's not just the vigilantes, when two groups have different values there is no way to escape conflict. Just because vigilantes often go against the popular way, they have come to have a negative connotation. But this does not necessarily mean they're always wrong.

__________________

further proof that this world just needs one supreme dictator, and mind control devices for everyone under her.

__________________

DeSade, in his book Justine puts up this notion that there is a life of virtue, and a life of non-virtue, and that there is conflict between the two. He reflects that there will always be non-virtuous people, and thus he suggests that we reform society towards this non-virtous way of life.

In any case this kind of vigilantism is silly. It starts with the idea of justice, but ends up being those with power applying their will on those without. Like world peace, it's one of those ideas you have to toss of when you turn fourteen.

Mr U

__________________

But why?
What about if it's just one man working outside of the law?
He would never get enough power but he would have an effect,but I do see your point,hmm I will think about this.

__________________

Everyone is merely an individual, with will and power. So too is the government composed of individuals exercising their will and power. Naturally, one individual can go against this, but how long will it take until the government turns against him, and uses its power against him?

Mr U

__________________