Comments on: Vigilante justice http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/ A daily webzine and forum for discussion of news that arises at the intersection of religion and culture Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:04:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Frank in Phoenix http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-229254 Frank in Phoenix Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:51:44 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-229254 <b>Scroop Moth (31):</b> ... I know two cases where gun-happy homeowners murdered quasi-intruders and got away without punishment, despite clear ethical traditions about justifiable homicide. <b>Frank:</b> And I don't doubt that has happened — people taking the lives of criminals where the circumstances didn't warrant such. Similarly, I have to believe there have been more heinous and depraved criminals who've gotten away without <i>temporal</i> punishment (i.e., in this life), perhaps due to some legal technicality — the rules of evidence, e.g. Perhaps we should ask ourselves if we are prepared to do all that we can to bring criminals to justice, but within the rules of the game, and if we're ready to trust God for the <i>eternal</i> punishment (or even the redemption) of the guilty. Scroop Moth (31): … I know two cases where gun-happy homeowners murdered quasi-intruders and got away without punishment, despite clear ethical traditions about justifiable homicide.

Frank: And I don’t doubt that has happened — people taking the lives of criminals where the circumstances didn’t warrant such.

Similarly, I have to believe there have been more heinous and depraved criminals who’ve gotten away without temporal punishment (i.e., in this life), perhaps due to some legal technicality — the rules of evidence, e.g.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves if we are prepared to do all that we can to bring criminals to justice, but within the rules of the game, and if we’re ready to trust God for the eternal punishment (or even the redemption) of the guilty.

]]> By: Scroop Moth http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-229136 Scroop Moth Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:43:05 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-229136 Not being a libertarian, I'm sympathetic to your emphasis on personalized relationships. That's how humans actually interact, rather than according to the absolute values of consent and voluntary exchange. The issue with the rope is whether the victim owes damages to the criminal for cutting the criminal's rope during an escape. I agree that angels seem to be dancing on the head of a pin, but libertarians are clever and relentless enough to make this happen. My reason for going down this path was to defend the life of the burglar, not to criminalize the homeowner. I know two cases where gun-happy homeowners murdered quasi-intruders and got away without punishment, despite clear ethical traditions about justifiable homicide. Not being a libertarian, I’m sympathetic to your emphasis on personalized relationships. That’s how humans actually interact, rather than according to the absolute values of consent and voluntary exchange. The issue with the rope is whether the victim owes damages to the criminal for cutting the criminal’s rope during an escape. I agree that angels seem to be dancing on the head of a pin, but libertarians are clever and relentless enough to make this happen. My reason for going down this path was to defend the life of the burglar, not to criminalize the homeowner. I know two cases where gun-happy homeowners murdered quasi-intruders and got away without punishment, despite clear ethical traditions about justifiable homicide.

]]> By: Frank in Phoenix http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-229065 Frank in Phoenix Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:34:04 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-229065 Two of the more fundamental tenets of libertarianism (as I understand it) come into play in the given scenario: Do not aggress against others; and personal responsibility for one's actions. The burglar was the aggressor; and he was held responsible for his actions <i>by the victim.</i> (The homeowner suffered the loss, not "society" nor the State.) Again, I would have been both inclined and quite happy to hold the perp for the arrival of the LEOs, and then to await redress at a court of law. But I don't begrudge the homeowner putting the burglar to work cleaning up the mess <i>he</i> made while waiting for the cops to show up. Indeed, I think it might be argued that the homeowner's actions may have served to better <i>personalize</i> the offense in the eyes of the burglar. He had to look his victim in the eye, not to mention spend a good amount of time in the home under the <i>homeowner's</i> conditions, rather than under his own (i.e., commission of theft). It's easier to victimize somebody who you never really see. Two of the more fundamental tenets of libertarianism (as I understand it) come into play in the given scenario:

Do not aggress against others; and personal responsibility for one’s actions.

The burglar was the aggressor; and he was held responsible for his actions by the victim. (The homeowner suffered the loss, not “society” nor the State.)

Again, I would have been both inclined and quite happy to hold the perp for the arrival of the LEOs, and then to await redress at a court of law. But I don’t begrudge the homeowner putting the burglar to work cleaning up the mess he made while waiting for the cops to show up.

Indeed, I think it might be argued that the homeowner’s actions may have served to better personalize the offense in the eyes of the burglar. He had to look his victim in the eye, not to mention spend a good amount of time in the home under the homeowner’s conditions, rather than under his own (i.e., commission of theft).

It’s easier to victimize somebody who you never really see.

]]> By: Frank in Phoenix http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-229054 Frank in Phoenix Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:23:38 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-229054 <b>Scroop Moth (28):</b> Libertarian theories of property lead serious thinkers in the movement to consider such ethical puzzles as, who owns the rope a criminal uses to tie up a victim? <b>Frank:</b> "The one who paid for it," I would assume. But why would that question even matter? The issue isn't ownership of the rope, but the violence against the victim. "Serious thinkers in the movement"? Talk about arguing over the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin ... Scroop Moth (28): Libertarian theories of property lead serious thinkers in the movement to consider such ethical puzzles as, who owns the rope a criminal uses to tie up a victim?

Frank: “The one who paid for it,” I would assume.

But why would that question even matter? The issue isn’t ownership of the rope, but the violence against the victim.

“Serious thinkers in the movement”? Talk about arguing over the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin …

]]> By: Scroop Moth http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-228745 Scroop Moth Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:56:41 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-228745 Even though the burglar made a mess and caused damage, the homeowner may not use force to obtain compensation (may not, not cannot). An economic claim against someone doesn't justify using the threat of violence to obtain labor (kidnapping), however fleeting. The homeowner needs to file suit, obtain judgement, and await recovery through execution by a peace officer of a warrant. Libertarians argue problems a lot less clear than this scenario, Frank. Libertarian theories of property lead serious thinkers in the movement to consider such ethical puzzles as, who owns the rope a criminal uses to tie up a victim? Even though the burglar made a mess and caused damage, the homeowner may not use force to obtain compensation (may not, not cannot). An economic claim against someone doesn’t justify using the threat of violence to obtain labor (kidnapping), however fleeting. The homeowner needs to file suit, obtain judgement, and await recovery through execution by a peace officer of a warrant. Libertarians argue problems a lot less clear than this scenario, Frank. Libertarian theories of property lead serious thinkers in the movement to consider such ethical puzzles as, who owns the rope a criminal uses to tie up a victim?

]]> By: Frank in Phoenix http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-228730 Frank in Phoenix Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:08:20 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-228730 <b>Scroop Moth (2):</b> ... The kidnapping was not the arrest but the obtaining of another’s labor by the threat of deadly force. <b>Frank:</b> If he forced the perp to wash his car, moow his lawn and paint his house at gunpoint, you might have something there. As it is, he simply required the perp to clean up the mess <i>he</i> made of the citizen's home during the course of the burglary. "Kidnapping"? <i>Feh!</i> Scroop Moth (2): … The kidnapping was not the arrest but the obtaining of another’s labor by the threat of deadly force.

Frank: If he forced the perp to wash his car, moow his lawn and paint his house at gunpoint, you might have something there.

As it is, he simply required the perp to clean up the mess he made of the citizen’s home during the course of the burglary.

“Kidnapping”? Feh!

]]> By: Scroop Moth http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-228681 Scroop Moth Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:33:37 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-228681 Frank -- If you shoot and kill an intruder in your home because you're angry at him or too stubborn to evade the danger when you easily could, it's murder. No jury will convict you of it, but it's still murder. Just as some Christians think fetuscide is murder, even though I know it isn't, I think using unnecessary deadly force on your own premises is murder, even though many people think it isn't and routinely allow fellow citizens to get away with it. Many Christians think that killing burglars in the act is optional, a good thin, a service to society, and just punishment. Frank — If you shoot and kill an intruder in your home because you’re angry at him or too stubborn to evade the danger when you easily could, it’s murder. No jury will convict you of it, but it’s still murder. Just as some Christians think fetuscide is murder, even though I know it isn’t, I think using unnecessary deadly force on your own premises is murder, even though many people think it isn’t and routinely allow fellow citizens to get away with it. Many Christians think that killing burglars in the act is optional, a good thin, a service to society, and just punishment.

]]> By: Scroop Moth http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-228679 Scroop Moth Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:23:18 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-228679 <i>Are you really a fool, or do you just play one on WMB?</i> Blessed art thou, Frank in Phoenix. I do try to live up to my illustrious surname. Of all localities on the net, this blog may appreciate a role that was hallowed by St. Paul (for its service to the labors of love, I like to think). Fools tell the truth. Or at least make you think. The kidnapping was not the arrest but the obtaining of another's labor by the threat of deadly force. Check out the libertarian tracts about ethics which involve even more extreme and counterintuitive questions than this. Are you really a fool, or do you just play one on WMB?

Blessed art thou, Frank in Phoenix. I do try to live up to my illustrious surname. Of all localities on the net, this blog may appreciate a role that was hallowed by St. Paul (for its service to the labors of love, I like to think).

Fools tell the truth. Or at least make you think. The kidnapping was not the arrest but the obtaining of another’s labor by the threat of deadly force. Check out the libertarian tracts about ethics which involve even more extreme and counterintuitive questions than this.

]]> By: Random Name http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-228572 Random Name Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:11:57 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-228572 Why do you keep thinking or saying that I am arguing against gun ownership? Do you read what I say, or do you replace what I say with what you think I say? I am being cynical about gun ownership and about romanticizing it. I am cynical about marriage, but I have been married for almost 42 years I consider my daughter married to her partner although they can't legally get married. Although my wife and I have a marriage certificate signed by a Unitarian minister, I am not sure that makes us really married, even if it wasn't a shotgun wedding. Why do you keep thinking or saying that I am arguing against gun ownership? Do you read what I say, or do you replace what I say with what you think I say?

I am being cynical about gun ownership and about romanticizing it. I am cynical about marriage, but I have been married for almost 42 years

I consider my daughter married to her partner although they can’t legally get married. Although my wife and I have a marriage certificate signed by a Unitarian minister, I am not sure that makes us really married, even if it wasn’t a shotgun wedding.

]]> By: Frank in Phoenix http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-228513 Frank in Phoenix Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:32:18 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/19/vigilante-justice/#comment-228513 <b>Random Name (21):</b> One could also add in cases where guns are stolen by burglars or taken away from people trying to defend themselves, and other mishaps. <b>Frank:</b> Arguing against private gun ownership because criminals <i>might</i> turn the tables and use citizens' guns against them (if indeed that is what you're suggesting) isn't ultimately valid, either. As I recall, the 2nd or 3rd greatest cause of death to on-duty police officers is being shot by criminals with their own service weapons. (Auto accident is no. 1, I think — again, I've been out of the loop on these matters for quite some time.) You wouldn't propose disarming LEOs because their guns <i>might</i> be taken and used against them, would you? Random Name (21): One could also add in cases where guns are stolen by burglars or taken away from people trying to defend themselves, and other mishaps.

Frank: Arguing against private gun ownership because criminals might turn the tables and use citizens’ guns against them (if indeed that is what you’re suggesting) isn’t ultimately valid, either.

As I recall, the 2nd or 3rd greatest cause of death to on-duty police officers is being shot by criminals with their own service weapons. (Auto accident is no. 1, I think — again, I’ve been out of the loop on these matters for quite some time.)

You wouldn’t propose disarming LEOs because their guns might be taken and used against them, would you?

]]>