Is there anything wrong with vigilantism, Veeky Forums?

People, individuals especially, are easily manipulated by their own emotions. What if a vigilante kills the wrong person? Then a vigilante goes after him for an honest mistake. Justice needs a system, albeit the current ones have their flaws, to make sure that the punishment fits the crime and the innocent are not wrongfully convicted.

Proper authority is a spook

Yes, only the state can dispose of its property. DAMAGING OR TERMINATING GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY IS A SEVERE OFFENSE, CITIZEN!

A liberal justice system is the only thing that separates western states from barbaric tribes. Vigilantism is bad and so is anime posting.

>posts anime
>do you think there is anything wrong with going around and killing people you think might be bad
yeah nah fuck off

>Light Yagami and Lelouche Vi Britannia
Stopped right there.

Its a yes and no situation. I depends on multiple factors and what that country's beliefs are and how big of a problem you are fighting against. if it usually involves innocent people getting hurt by your actions or it only benefits your self or is based off of solely rage/revenge its bad, but then again depends on what your fighting for. Be a free thinker but at the same time understand how the world/your government works, and only hold righteous morals. The again Im catholic so If I truly believe that it needs to be done and God would accept my actions then I would go for it. Just remember a lot of psychos believe the same thing.

Lack of accountability quickly leads to abuse

>forcing the moral views of one person upon society by ignoring the laws set in place through centuries of democratic compromise, in order to 'do good'
Yeah nah fuck vigilantism

Have you seen nigger justice though?

Real talk:

Vigilantism carries the inherent risk of mob justice, conflicting moralities, and guilty-before-proven situations. This means you're more likely to have incidents of groups throwing together mobs of people to lynch others for perceived wrongdoings, people who follow their own code of morality apart from society as a whole (Such as people who consider any member of a race not their own to be an enemy, or someone who considers anyone using technology as a threat to humanity), and people who are likely to attack people who they suspect of a crime rather than prove it. All of these things lead to a chain reaction of retaliation since you have groups of people who can't agree on what's right and wrong (See: blood feuds of America and other places during the 1800s, families attacking each other over a wrongdoing decades ago).

If you solve these problems, there's no inherent issue with vigilantism. This means you need an entire population on the same moral page and with a degree of restraint in order to properly conduct investigations into guilt and innocence of accused. In a state controlled system, the moral dilemma is solved by elevating the state to be the supreme authority of the land (Giving a united system even if all members of society don't agree on the particular set of laws/morals established) and the discovery of guilt is headed by a staff of people funded to prove guilt/innocence. This makes vigilantism as the main means of a justice system too difficult to implement in a fair and useful fashion.

In isolated cases, vigilantism is theoretically fine. For instance, if a man witnesses another person bringing harm to someone, that man would certainly be in the clear for attempting to stop it.

As a Catholic though, you have a list of rules and parameters given to you by your religious head, which you should use as a source of authority (Hierarchy of order being a pretty big tenant of Catholic doctrine). To that end, your ability to met out justice for crimes is limited in many capacities.

You do have some leeway where goals are conflicted, but overall, the preservation of life is a paramount concern, and the brash actions of vigilantism can cause greater harm to one's goals in many situations. If possible, it is better to rely on a hierarchy to determine what actions should be undertaken rather than the impulsive whims of one man acting outside of consort with the church community as a whole.

Who's the one that abuses the abusers then?

It's a violation of the law established by a democratic society.

Yeah, it isn't based on evidence.

Another opportunistic abuser.

It risks harming innocents bys skipping due process

Sometimes necessary within an unjust system and often misused by retarded mobs to frightening ends. The issue is vigilantes usually see themselves as heroes of a sort even though they're, say, lynching some black dude over a shaky rumor started by the village tart.

>all these statist cucks
Hoo boy

>seeing things in black and white
You must be 18+ to visit this site.

There's no perfect system, leaving it to a state and leaving it to the people are both deeply flawed systems that need lots of preparation and ironing out in order to work.

>I have attained enlightenment seeking the third way
How tight is that fedora?

I'm sorry to see that you were retarded the whole time and yet I took your post seriously.