Vigilantism exists whenever rule of law is perceived as being inadequate in some way. Perhaps it is an underfunded and/or corrupt police force, or laws that are not agreeable to some people. Simply put, the activities exist for very much the same reason black markets do: to fill a void left by the authorities.
One thing that does get me thinking is exactly when does a vigilante (if ever) have the right to do something righteous despite the righteous act being outlawed due to omission or intention. Taking the example of Batman (again), the Gotham City law has a blind spot whereby certain criminally insane people are not being put to death despite repeatedly escaping and causing the deaths of innocent people. Would it ever be right for Batman to kill them?
Of course, we have the popular perception consideration that takes into account the fact that vigilantes already operate outside the law and are somewhat feared by the people. Vigilantes starting to kill would turn public perception against them. Yet this neglects the point that there are worse things than vigilantes killing small numbers of murderous individuals as opposed to the criminally insane killing large numbers of innocents. Would people choose the lesser evil, or would they continue to support their legal system riddled with loopholes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment