Ethics of beating the ****e outta criminals.

end of the road · 27-08-2016 11:26PM

Wigglepuppy wrote: »

No they won't if it's an unimaginable situation.
And no, not all vigilantes are vigilantes just for fame and likes. For example, if people live on an estate where a tiny minority are making life hell for others and a group of people decide enough is enough, that is out of being tired of the intimidation and fear.

we all know what we are capible of and how we will behave deep down. vigilantes are thugs looking for fame. lock them up as they are a threat to the state.

RustyNut wrote: »

I take my hat off to you. Your a stronger person than me, I would inflict those bad things on them.

Having said that I wouldn't agree with vigilantism per se but when it's my family I am responsible.

I was around when the concerned parents against drugs were a thing, the textbook definition of vigilantes. They came about because of the complete inaction of the state to combat the heroin epidemic in the inner city in the 80's.

Everyone knew who the dealers were, where they operated and how they operated. The Guards were told who was dealing, where, when and how they were dealing but for whatever reason these dealers appeared to be left to it. More and more young people were getting sucked into heroin, taking it, selling it and in a lot of cases both. Something had to be done but the state had bigger fish to fry at the time so the mob was born.

This crowd who were well intentioned were quickly hijacked by the provos and used for their purposes and it was only then that the authorities decided something needed to be done but not before plenty of innocent people were kicked out of their homes or worse and more were recruited by the provos.

The point I'm making is that a vacuum will be filled and if people feel that they can't depend on the state to give them security and justice they will take it upon themselves and that's not likely to end well.

i wonder how many of the "concerned" "parents" against drugs were down the pub every week taking the legal drug that is alcohol? they would have been better off calling themselves "concerned residents against heroin" rather then "drugs" in general, but that's irish hypocrisy for you i suppose.

Wigglepuppy · 28-08-2016 12:14AM

end of the road wrote: »

we all know what we are capible of and how we will behave deep down. vigilantes are thugs looking for fame. lock them up as they are a threat to the state.

Repeating it over and over won't make it true.

andekwarhola · 28-08-2016 12:58AM

rjpf1980 wrote: »

When faceless vigilantes are judge jury and executioner who polices them? What authority do they answer to? Their arbitrary power is wide open to abuse. Thus is why we have the rule of law and a court system.

I'm not saying it's an ideal situation.

There is, however, a grey area of 'justice vacuum' where you have people terrorising communities and they generally evade conventional justice.

The people here that deal in nice, absolute opinions have probably never, and never will, live in such communities or be terrorised by those people.

end of the road · 28-08-2016 02:38AM

andekwarhola wrote: »

The people here that deal in nice, absolute opinions have probably never, and never will, live in such communities or be terrorised by those people.

how do you know. plenty of people who have no time for violent thugs live in such communities.

Pedro K · 28-08-2016 02:57AM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

This is a regular occurence.
Remember early on this summer a paedophile was found to be living in the same locality as a school and he was set upon and beated black and blue by local parents and apparently was lucky to escape alive after Gardai intervened to save him from the lynch mob.
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/convicted-paedophile-anthony-luckwill-hiding-7965255

Generally I don't support vigilante street justice and whatever about other criminals, I would support the punishment beating of paedophile suspects. They have no-one to blame but themselves and news of beatings helps to spread public awareness of these people.

What happens in those african lynching videos on LiveLeak is too good for anyone accused of paedophilia.

I suspect you're a paedophile...

There you go lads! Open season on Musketeer! He/she said it him/herself! It's now ok to smash him/her up.

El_Duderino 09 · 28-08-2016 09:21AM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote:

Communitys rarely get it wrong
The judiciary well that's another story

This is one of the most unthinkful comments i have ever seen on boards. The judiciary process is recorded and audited to highlight every single wrong decision. You got hear about the thousands of right decisions because they are unimportant in the audit process.

It's almost the exact opposite for the community.

The community has no formal process and is never audited. You never hear about the thousands of decisions the community gets wrong because they're not important. You remember the odd one where the community is right because of 'confirmation bias' (google it).

A second point us how would you possibly know if the community has it right or not unless there is a judiciary is there to determine the facts and make a decision?

Unthinkful comment has made my day and it's only 9 am. This thread keeps on giving.

El_Duderino 09 · 28-08-2016 09:31AM

Pedro K wrote:

I suspect you're a paedophile...
There you go lads! Open season on Musketeer! He/she said it him/herself! It's now ok to smash him/her up.

I suspect if musketeer4 was accused of a crime they hadn't committed, the. They would want yo put their side of the story across. Maybe they would be able to provide evidence which would prove their innocence, what if they can't prove their innocence but could definitely disprove the charge against them?

If only there was some formal process for bringing evidence to he judged by an independent party... Then that party (let's call them a Judge for convenience ) could decide if they did it or not. The 'judge' could be an expert at judging thus type of thing and could decide whether musteteer4 should be beaten up by the mob.

Or the mob could just accuse mysteteer4 of being a paedophile and beat him up and ruin his reputation for the rest of his life, just to be on the safe side. It's was musketeers fault for being accused and the court of the community rarely gets these things wrong. I mean, how could a person with no detailed knowledge of the law get it wrong?

starshine1234 · 28-08-2016 02:03PM

Martin, to be fair, I answered your questions. You pretended to answer mine but you actually avoided my questions.

I asked, Who decides that people like Martin Callinan should be above the law?

Your answer

martingriff wrote: »

...
1. Nobody should be above the law.

I asked 'who decided', not 'is it acceptable'.

I asked, Who decides that genuine Guards like Maurice McCabe should be persecuted and villified?

Your answer

martingriff wrote: »

2. No whistle blowers if they are guards or whatever should be villified or persecuted.

I asked 'who decided', not 'is it acceptable'.

Did you misunderstand my questions, or are you being deliberately obtuse again?

definition of obtuse (from Google) = annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

martingriff · 28-08-2016 03:26PM

martingriff wrote: »

I have a question to all those who are for vigilante justice. They have not been answered.

1. What crimes is vigilante justice allowed for and who makes these decisions.

2. What level of "justice" are you allowed to dole out. Again who decides this.

3. If a person is given "justice by a vigilante mob (sorry righteous group) and then it is found out that this person was innocent after all (mistaken identity, unfortunate name what punishment is doled out to the "righteous group" and by whom. Should they hand themselves into the police or is it they were been safe by acting quickly.

Wigglepuppy wrote: »

I've seen that tactic here before of pretending not to know the answer to something. You know full well that there are heinous crimes committed against innocent people, e.g. assaulting a child, breaking into an elderly person's home and attacking them.

How can you know? I don't think I would either but I cannot know until in the situation and some people are so atrocious it is in the only thing that will make them stop.

It was not a tactic on my part it was an actual question. I ask a few questions (which I have quoted) in relation to what constitutes giving vigilante justice. They were mostly rhetoric but I was hoping I may get some answers. So here is my point of asking you that question is your definition of who should get vigilante justice (If I supported vigilante justice you and I would be similar) someone else may be very different. There is no law in that and I would rather live in a land where there is law.

Is our justice system perfect GOD NO there are corrupt cops judges, lawyers who think they know best and what they give is right and there are people who think they are above the law. We are not the only country like this but that does not make it right. What we need is a reform of our laws our government to stare down the judiciary and make laws more strict in a lot of cases. I want law and order and not vigilante law

martingriff · 28-08-2016 03:29PM

end of the road wrote: »

we all know what we are capible of and how we will behave deep down. vigilantes are thugs looking for fame. lock them up as they are a threat to the state.

i wonder how many of the "concerned" "parents" against drugs were down the pub every week taking the legal drug that is alcohol? they would have been better off calling themselves "concerned residents against heroin" rather then "drugs" in general, but that's irish hypocrisy for you i suppose.

Come off it seriously you know exactly what they were campaigning for as well as I and that kind of passage from you should be met with the scorn it deserves

martingriff · 28-08-2016 03:32PM

RustyNut wrote: »

I take my hat off to you. Your a stronger person than me, I would inflict those bad things on them.

Having said that I wouldn't agree with vigilantism per se but when it's my family I am responsible.

I was around when the concerned parents against drugs were a thing, the textbook definition of vigilantes. They came about because of the complete inaction of the state to combat the heroin epidemic in the inner city in the 80's.

Everyone knew who the dealers were, where they operated and how they operated. The Guards were told who was dealing, where, when and how they were dealing but for whatever reason these dealers appeared to be left to it. More and more young people were getting sucked into heroin, taking it, selling it and in a lot of cases both. Something had to be done but the state had bigger fish to fry at the time so the mob was born.

This crowd who were well intentioned were quickly hijacked by the provos and used for their purposes and it was only then that the authorities decided something needed to be done but not before plenty of innocent people were kicked out of their homes or worse and more were recruited by the provos.

The point I'm making is that a vacuum will be filled and if people feel that they can't depend on the state to give them security and justice they will take it upon themselves and that's not likely to end well.

But you see in a way you prove my point in a way (my differentiation of vigilante is different as they were not armed as far as I know but was not around during that point or did not live in Dublin) they were well intention however there cause was then taken more by more extreme people and used there cause to do what they wanted.

martingriff · 28-08-2016 03:35PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

Martin, to be fair, I answered your questions. You pretended to answer mine but you actually avoided my questions.

I asked, Who decides that people like Martin Callinan should be above the law?

Your answer

I asked 'who decided', not 'is it acceptable'.

I asked, Who decides that genuine Guards like Maurice McCabe should be persecuted and villified?

Your answer

I asked 'who decided', not 'is it acceptable'.

Did you misunderstand my questions, or are you being deliberately obtuse again?

definition of obtuse (from Google) = annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

What is your point by who decided I was not been obtuse I was refusing to drag this down to a tit for tat against a specific person which you were trying to do. Please point where I was been annoying insensitive or withdraw your remark

Wigglepuppy · 28-08-2016 05:53PM

martingriff wrote: »

It was not a tactic on my part it was an actual question. I ask a few questions (which I have quoted) in relation to what constitutes giving vigilante justice. They were mostly rhetoric but I was hoping I may get some answers. So here is my point of asking you that question is your definition of who should get vigilante justice (If I supported vigilante justice you and I would be similar) someone else may be very different. There is no law in that and I would rather live in a land where there is law.

Is our justice system perfect GOD NO there are corrupt cops judges, lawyers who think they know best and what they give is right and there are people who think they are above the law. We are not the only country like this but that does not make it right. What we need is a reform of our laws our government to stare down the judiciary and make laws more strict in a lot of cases. I want law and order and not vigilante law

Oh I never said I would like vigilante type actions to be the law, all I'm saying is that it's understandable at times - not ideal but the result of poor policing and sentencing, and people being at the end of their tether.

Wigglepuppy · 28-08-2016 05:57PM

end of the road wrote: »

how do you know. plenty of people who have no time for violent thugs live in such communities.

Exactly - and when they are pushed to the limit by violent thugs terrorising their neighbourhood, and an unreliable police force, they crack.

martingriff · 28-08-2016 05:58PM

Wigglepuppy wrote: »

Oh I never said I would like vigilante type actions to be the law, all I'm saying is that it's understandable at times - not ideal but the result of poor policing and sentencing, and people being at the end of their tether.

In that sense ya I say you and I are close. We hear some so and so and say good enough for them but I would still say those who did it should still be investigated

rjpf1980 · 28-08-2016 06:29PM

The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial with a prosecution and defense counsel presided over by a judge who are all schooled in the law and the deliberation of a jury of one's peers who decided if the defendant is guilty or not guilty based on reasonable doubt solely on the evidence presented in court is the cornerstone of our civilization. No man or woman should be subjected to arbitrary violence by self appointed vigilantes who deny the presumption of innocence, who are wide open to biased judgments, who cannot be trusted to deliberate thoroughly or take into account the evidence or lack of evidence of guilt.
End of.

28-08-2016 07:55PM

livedadream wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/one-of-irelands-mostfeared-predators-is-beaten-up-in-vigilante-attack-34991008.html

One of Ireland's most-feared predators is beaten up in vigilante attack

is it wrong that i read this and was like, ah well...

.

i know i should be all, assault is wrong and he served his time but theres a small part of me saying, well like, maybe it was her brothers and i dont blame them.

General consensus?

I would be curious as to the shall we say type of people who do such attacking.. If it was indeed family or someone close to a victim that attacked a perpetrator I could turn a blind eye but would still expect them to be prosecuted, but if it was just some useless waste of space looking for a justified fight that bothers me and I would want them charged.

rjpf1980 · 28-08-2016 11:54PM

222233 wrote: »

I would be curious as to the shall we say type of people who do such attacking.. If it was indeed family or someone close to a victim that attacked a perpetrator I could turn a blind eye but would still expect them to be prosecuted, but if it was just some useless waste of space looking for a justified fight that bothers me and I would want them charged.

A person who breaks the law and violently attacks someone as a self appointed judge/jury/executioner is likely to be intellectually challenged or else psychopathic.

Anyone who advocates vigilantism has got serious problems.

mynamejeff · 29-08-2016 12:08AM

rjpf1980 wrote: »

The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial with a prosecution and defense counsel presided over by a judge who are all schooled in the law and the deliberation of a jury of one's peers who decided if the defendant is guilty or not guilty based on reasonable doubt solely on the evidence presented in court is the cornerstone of our civilization. No man or woman should be subjected to arbitrary violence by self appointed vigilantes who deny the presumption of innocence, who are wide open to biased judgments, who cannot be trusted to deliberate thoroughly or take into account the evidence or lack of evidence of guilt.
End of.

I think one of the major problems is that the trials arent fair the punishments arent fair . the consequences breaking the law are very minor and getting more so.
The justice system has been corrupted horribly by the legal profession in this country mostly for financial game .

rjpf1980 · 29-08-2016 01:09AM

mynamejeff wrote: »

I think one of the major problems is that the trials arent fair the punishments arent fair . the consequences breaking the law are very minor and getting more so.
The justice system has been corrupted horribly by the legal profession in this country mostly for financial game .

So the solution is to abandon the rule of law and throw away basic rights and freedoms and let anyone who feels like it take whatever retribution they like against real or imagined wrongdoers with no safeguards checks and. balances or oversights? The law of the jungle?

martingriff · 29-08-2016 01:57AM

mynamejeff wrote: »

rjpf1980 wrote: »

The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial with a prosecution and defense counsel presided over by a judge who are all schooled in the law and the deliberation of a jury of one's peers who decided if the defendant is guilty or not guilty based on reasonable doubt solely on the evidence presented in court is the cornerstone of our civilization. No man or woman should be subjected to arbitrary violence by self appointed vigilantes who deny the presumption of innocence, who are wide open to biased judgments, who cannot be trusted to deliberate thoroughly or take into account the evidence or lack of evidence of guilt.
End of.

I think one of the major problems is that the trials arent fair the punishments arent fair . the consequences breaking the law are very minor and getting more so.
The justice system has been corrupted horribly by the legal profession in this country mostly for financial game .

Why would you say the trials are not fair. I agree the sentencing laws and the legal profession needs to be looked at

mansize · 29-08-2016 02:14AM

Ah too many here are swayed by the Batman argument

A billionaire vigilante protecting the status quo

mansize · 29-08-2016 02:17AM

Imagine the Keyboard warrior is strong on this thread

If a known criminal was spotted, most on this thread would reach for their inhaler

El_Duderino 09 · 29-08-2016 02:39AM

mansize wrote:

Imagine the Keyboard warrior is strong on this thread

If a known criminal was spotted, most on this thread would reach for their inhaler

Right on brah. A real man would rush in an crack skullz! A real man wouldn't worry about who did what but would deliver the riteous retribution of the common man. It doesn't matter whether he did it or not. What matters if the community 'thinks he did it'.

You know the scene in Trainspotting where Begby throws the glass that hits the girl and says 'that wee lassie got glased and no cnut leaves here til I find out what cnut did it'. That's what we're ultimately about.

Might makes right in the mob. That's why we have a justice system. Because it's preferable to the mob.

Thoie · 29-08-2016 02:53AM

Which crimes exactly are we allowed turn to vigilantism for?

I think my neighbour hasn't declared all his income on his taxes - I saw his mother slip him €50 the other day. Do I beat him myself, or will the Revenue send out a few boys to deal with him? If I have to beat him myself, given that it's only €50, will I just leave it at a kick in the shins, or how far do I have to go?

My TV license is overdue for payment as well - what kind of beating should I expect?

If a rapist gets beaten half to death, what does armed robbery get you? Beaten a quarter to death? Three eights?

livedadream · 29-08-2016 10:07AM

222233 wrote: »

I would be curious as to the shall we say type of people who do such attacking.. If it was indeed family or someone close to a victim that attacked a perpetrator I could turn a blind eye but would still expect them to be prosecuted, but if it was just some useless waste of space looking for a justified fight that bothers me and I would want them charged.

dont think you can have one rule for scumbags and another for the aggrieved family though.

El_Duderino 09 · 29-08-2016 10:12AM

Thoie wrote:

Which crimes exactly are we allowed turn to vigilantism for?

I'll bet the proponents of bearings will only want beatings for crimes they are sure they'll never commit. They won't propose beatings for financial crimes like tax evasion or failure to pay a government fee. They won't want beatings for motor offences like speeding or drink driving, both if which could kill a child.

They wrap all this nonsense in concern for children but it'd not about children at all. It's about looking hard and being angry with someone else. There's no way they will want to be held to the same stupid standard of being beaten because they were accused of a crime.

The community: 'Jaysus lads musketeer4 was flying down the road. I'd say he was doing 90kph. get your clubs and we'll pay him a visit'.

Musketeer 4: 'stop besting me! The speed limit is 100kph on that road!'

The community: 'none of your fancy talkin now musketeer, the community has accused you of speeding so your getting your beating to be in the safe side. you could have hurt a child'

Musketeer: 'oh yeah, that's fair enough. Carry on.'

It's all Nothing to do with justice. Everything to do with being angry, having a tendency towards violence and looking hard on the internet.

starshine1234 · 29-08-2016 10:42AM

The state has failed in its duty to prosecute serious crime for decades.

It is long past the point where it is reasonable to expect change.

Violence is morally acceptable in this circumstance, and in fact, violence may be morally required in these circumstances.

For example, if you see a man raping a small child, are you morally obliged to intervene to attempt to save the child?

I would suggest that you are.
You aren't required to allow yourself to be killed and you aren't required to perform superhuman feats. But, if it is possible to save the child, with little or no risk to yourself, or an acceptable risk, then Id argue that you are morally required to make the attempt.

If the state fails to prosecute violent criminals then perhaps people are morally required to take action. It is certain that it is not morally wrong to take action in those circumstances.
The state is acting with genuine malice when it refuses to prosecute serious crime. The vigilante is not. This distinction is very important.

Certainly, in the case of the rape of tens of thousands of children by the Catholic Church, which was ignored and facilitated by the Irish State and the Guards, I'd suggest things would have been better had vigilantes stepped in to fill the breach.
Would people complain if vigilantes had stepped in, and by so doing, saved thousands of Irish children from being raped?

I would prefer if we had a proper police service but we don't.

mansize · 29-08-2016 10:45AM

starshine1234 wrote: »

The state has failed in its duty to prosecute serious crime for decades.

It is long past the point where it is reasonable to expect change.

Violence is morally acceptable in this circumstance, and in fact, violence may be morally required in these circumstances.

For example, if you see a man raping a small child, are you morally obliged to intervene to attempt to save the child?

I would suggest that you are.
You aren't required to allow yourself to be killed and you aren't required to perform superhuman feats. But, if it is possible to save the child, with little or no risk to yourself, or an acceptable risk, then Id argue that you are morally required to make the attempt.

If the state fails to prosecute violent criminals then perhaps people are morally required to take action. It is certain that it is not morally wrong to take action in those circumstances.
The state is acting with genuine malice when it refuses to prosecute serious crime. The vigilante is not. This distinction is very important.

Certainly, in the case of the rape of tens of thousands of children by the Catholic Church, which was ignored and facilitated by the Irish State and the Guards, I'd suggest things would have been better had vigilantes stepped in to fill the breach.
Would people complain if vigilantes had stepped in, and by so doing, saved thousands of Irish children from being raped?

I would prefer if we had a proper police service but we don't.

How do you happen upon this adult attacking the child?

And surely in intervening your best recourse is to remove the child from the situation not leave it there while you give the purputrator a good kicking???

mansize · 29-08-2016 10:50AM

How many have a go heroes in this thread imagine life to be like a spaghetti western?

Ethics of beating the ****e outta criminals.

Comments