Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 3582074" data-attributes="member: 22424">In the scenario described, the father in question would not be acting out of revenge - he would be in the immediate pursuit of protecting his family*. If the father instead waited until some later time (whether through choice or necessity), then hunted down and killed the criminal when he was not an immediate threat then yes, that would be Evil. And he would be prosecuted as such.And while the everyman may reject that as being wrong on a visceral level, the everyman also generally doesn't consider the case where the father, hunting down the rapist in question, actually locates and kills the wrong man - perhaps the light was bad, or the rapist had a brother, or... Suddenly the position becomes much harder to justify. If you can demonstrate that allowing that sort of vigilante justice will lead to fewer dead innocent men than the court system then I'll change my position. If not, then I stand by it.* And, in fact, even acting in the immediate protection of the family is a position fraught with risk - there was at least one case discussed on Circus Maximus recently where a husband returned home and killed a man who was 'raping' his wife. Unfortunately, the wife was having an affair and cried rape to protect herself. However, in this case I will maintain that the man's actions weren't Evil as he was acting to protect his family from an immediate threat... but was working with imperfect knowledge. Absent the immediate threat, then he lacks that mitigation.And heaven help the vigilante who makes a mistake. However, you are quite right that the vigilante will be presumed innocent as well, which is certainly as it should be. No. You have to give the "monstrous criminal" the right to his day in court for the sake of all the individuals who look like monstrous criminals but are, in fact, innocent. You'll note I didn't say we should be lenient in our handling of them - a fair and impartial trial may well end in the electric chair.But for the man who only looks guilty, a fair and impartial trial ends in an acquital, but vigilante justice ends in the grave.You cannot sacrifice the lesser goods in favour of the 'greater good'.And no, saying the courts get things wrong far too often is not a ringing endorsement of the system. The system sucks. But it is infinitely better than the alternatives. And I'm going to maintain that it's better to see a guilty man freed for lack of evidence than it is for an innocent man to die for nothing.</blockquote>

Verification