Justifiable Lynchings?

Dame Warrigal said:
Never justified however they are described.
Click to expand...
So. how would you deal with an intruder who intends to rob you blind: Hit him over the head with a baseball bat, a metal walking stick, or in the U.S. shoot him?
If the intruder has been injured, can he legally sue the owner (Australia); can he successfully flog (sell the experience) the attack to an idea-hungry movie/TV industry?
Who's the victim? The injured thief or the home-owner?
 

Huh? I thought a lynching was a hanging without judicial process.

If I had to deal with an intruder intent on robbing me blind, I'd say "Go for it, mate", and throw my wallet at him.
My aim is so bad he would probably not suffer an injury.

Actually, I would more likely say "Go for it and I hope it chokes you , you miserable bastard".
 
Always justified and proper until, of course, the first innocent person gets strung up.

Not so long since the home of an eminent woman doctor was trashed in the UK because the mob didn;t know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Huh? I thought a lynching was a hanging without judicial process.

If I had to deal with an intruder intent on robbing me blind, I'd say "Go for it, mate", and throw my wallet at him.
My aim is so bad he would probably not suffer an injury.

Actually, I would more likely say "Go for it and I hope it chokes you , you miserable bastard".
Click to expand...
I like your sense of humor, DW! But what will the thief do, especially if after all that, he finds nothing worthwhile to steal?
Another example:
You're out Xmas shopping, bought yourself an $80.- slinky dress for the party, some bling to go with it, a pair of beautiful, black Merrill sandals.Exhausted you arrive home and guess what, your beautiful, strappy sandals have disappeared!
What do you do? Check the car, the store, the car park-in case they dropped out of the bag!
Finally it dawns on you: You've just become the victim of a light fingered thief!
Wouldn't you get angry? I sure would!
What should the punishment for this sly, light :hiteachother:fingered thief be, if ever caught: A rap over the knuckles; a good talking to; a PURPLE-GREEN spot on her/his forehead? Or?
 
Last edited:
Susie said:
I like your sense of humor, DW! But what will the thief do, especially if after all that, he finds nothing worthwhile to steal?
Another example:
You're out Xmas shopping, bought yourself an $80.- slinky dress for the party, some bling to go with it, a pair of beautiful, black Merrill sandals.Exhausted you arrive home and guess what, your beautiful, strappy sandals have disappeared!
What do you do? Check the car, the store, the car park-in case they dropped out of the bag!
Finally it dawns on you: You've just become the victim of a light fingered thief!
Wouldn't you get angry? I sure would!
What should the punishment for this sly, light :hiteachother:fingered thief be, if ever caught: A wrap over the knuckles; a good talking to; a PURPLE-GREEN spot on her/his forehead? Or?
Click to expand...

Actually, Susie, I wasn't joking. There is nothing material that can be taken from me that is worth someone's life to defend; not mine and not the thief's either.

Also anger results in bad justice. That's why we have courts of law, not vigilantes bent on lynching people. Between a hasty hanging and a good talking to, I choose the latter every time.

The rule of law protects all of us.
 
Not sure that all believe in the justice system, especially when it comes to racially charged cases...
 
The problem with giving up your goods to a robber is that, especially nowadays, they are no longer satisfied with just material possessions - they want to humiliate and/or hurt you. Giving up your wallet is no guarantee that the robber will turn and leave - the days of the gentleman thief are long gone.

Personally I would judge my actions on a case-by-case basis. If I just have a few dollars or something I'm not really attached to, I would probably offer it up freely as the first step. If it were something of great value, on the other hand - a family member, a royalty check for my books, a pepperoni pizza - then I would take more direct action.

That action could include becoming judge, jury, executioner or all three.

I don't expect the police to protect me - they won't be there until the bad guy is long gone and I'm a little puddle on the ground. I don't expect the judicial system to protect me - they are corrupt and ineffective to a fare-thee-well. My neighbors? They're all hiding in their basements watching television, so no help there.

No, I'm a firm advocate of frontier justice, of the sort that fits the crime.
 
So I guess it's back to vigilante justice? To hell with the courts? I don't think anyone is against defending yourself from imminent danger or death by whatever means you have available.. I think we quickly get into grey areas about what constitutes imminent danger or death though as the odious Stand you Ground laws have demonstrated over and over in some high profile cases. So what is a lynching? I would say that the criminal is subdued and taken out and publically killed. How is that OK? If the criminal is subdued and able to be taken somewhere, why not call the authorities to take over? OR have we become so blood thirsty that nothing satisfies us any more but inflicting torture and pain and death on another human because it gives us a perverse sort of pleasure and we feel it's "justified" because this person did something to us. I think we are seeing a trend where only killing makes us happy. It makes us even happier if we feel the person "deserved" it. We are becoming as morally bankrupt as the criminals we are up against.
 
rkunsaw said:
The fewer thieves in the world the better the world is. Punishment for any crime should always be severe enough so that it discourages repeats.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with your response to a world-wide problem!
However, what would crime writers, the TV/movie industry do without thieves and robbers.
The following is an imaginary story e.g. "a total and complete LIE !!!!
What if crime writers, movie and TV representatives, who enjoy filling our screen with gruesome events, could attend the annual "thieves and robbers" convention where they could be one of the judges for the most successful videos, showing the process and result of a thieving expedition, maybe involving valuable jewellery, silver items, electronic gadgets, and for sale to the TV/movie industry? (the chosen videos)
Don't you think the originators (the thieves) should at least be entitled to a hefty percentage of the sale ?
 
QuickSilver said:
So I guess it's back to vigilante justice? To hell with the courts? I don't think anyone is against defending yourself from imminent danger or death by whatever means you have available.. I think we quickly get into grey areas about what constitutes imminent danger or death though as the odious Stand you Ground laws have demonstrated over and over in some high profile cases. So what is a lynching? I would say that the criminal is subdued and taken out and publically killed. How is that OK? If the criminal is subdued and able to be taken somewhere, why not call the authorities to take over? OR have we become so blood thirsty that nothing satisfies us any more but inflicting torture and pain and death on another human because it gives us a perverse sort of pleasure and we feel it's "justified" because this person did something to us. I think we are seeing a trend where only killing makes us happy. It makes us even happier if we feel the person "deserved" it. We are becoming as morally bankrupt as the criminals we are up against.
Click to expand...

As an intelligent person I'm assuming that you know the roots of the word "vigilante" - that it is derived from the Latin for "observant" or "awake", and that the original vigilantes were basically firemen / policemen before firemen / policemen existed.

This is how I view vigilantism - no courts were needed when an unlawful action was directly observed. The problem was taken in hand and summarily solved. No muss, no fuss, no bought judges, no PC, no sleeping jurors.

Justice.

What constitutes imminent death or danger would I believe be quite readily apparent to anyone who has ever faced a threat in the real world. It is only those whose social position and money have insulated them for their entire lives who support the crippled apparatus that we call a "justice system".

Like any other social system, our justice is fueled by money. Those who have it walk, those who do not go to prison. In neither case is justice served.

Lynchings? Well, if a bad guy lynches someone then he should himself be lynched. If he murdered someone (not killed - murdered) then he should be killed. If he stole? Perhaps the mid-eastern custom of cutting off fingers / hands. It is an effective practice with a nearly zero rate of recidivism.

Rape? Cut off other parts.

I take no pleasure in inflicting pain on others, but I DO view it as occasionally necessary for my survival, which of course is only following the biological imperative.
 
SifuPhil said:
As an intelligent person I'm assuming that you know the roots of the word "vigilante" - that it is derived from the Latin for "observant" or "awake", and that the original vigilantes were basically firemen / policemen before firemen / policemen existed.

This is how I view vigilantism - no courts were needed when an unlawful action was directly observed. The problem was taken in hand and summarily solved. No muss, no fuss, no bought judges, no PC, no sleeping jurors.


Justice.

What constitutes imminent death or danger would I believe be quite readily apparent to anyone who has ever faced a threat in the real world. It is only those whose social position and money have insulated them for their entire lives who support the crippled apparatus that we call a "justice system".

Like any other social system, our justice is fueled by money. Those who have it walk, those who do not go to prison. In neither case is justice served.

Lynchings? Well, if a bad guy lynches someone then he should himself be lynched. If he murdered someone (not killed - murdered) then he should be killed. If he stole? Perhaps the mid-eastern custom of cutting off fingers / hands. It is an effective practice with a nearly zero rate of recidivism.

Rape? Cut off other parts.

I take no pleasure in inflicting pain on others, but I DO view it as occasionally necessary for my survival, which of course is only following the biological imperative.
Click to expand...

So I guess you wouldn't mind a little Sharia law.. maybe a public stoning.. or beheading.. great fun.. lol!!
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Actually, Susie, I wasn't joking. There is nothing material that can be taken from me that is worth someone's life to defend; not mine and not the thief's either.


Also anger results in bad justice. That's why we have courts of law, not vigilantes bent on lynching people. Between a hasty hanging and a good talking to, I choose the latter every time.


The rule of law protects all of us.
Click to expand...


the rule of law does not protect me when it has so many loopholes for the criminal to escape.
 
As I understand the article the criminals were caught in the act and dealt with at the time. It was not a mob that hunted them down.
That may not be altogether bad.
 
You do understand that the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" statement is a call for moderation in punishment.

The punishment must not be worse than the offence that provokes it.

From the OP link

In October, there were several incidents of public lynching committed against alleged thieves that were published in local provincial newspapers
Click to expand...

Think about this incident, also in Argentina, which is described as a lynching (I always thought that lynching involved a hanging but apparently beating someone to death also qualifies)

A youth tried to steal a mobile phone and was attacked by a mob. A policeman saw the scene and dialed 911. “The man was bleeding. His eyes were rolled back. He was in a bad condition,” the officer said. But when the police patrol arrived and tried to fetch the criminal, officers were attacked by the residents. The police used rubber bullets to disperse them.
Click to expand...

Do these incidents pass the 'eye for an eye' test or is it simply mob rule, even when the police turn up.
 
The veneer of any civilized society is only a shallow coating that we have seen come off from all nations, including our own...
 
Dame Warrigal said:
You do understand that the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" statement is a call for moderation in punishment.

The punishment must not be worse than the offence that provokes it.

From the OP link



Think about this incident, also in Argentina, which is described as a lynching (I always thought that lynching involved a hanging but apparently beating someone to death also qualifies)



Do these incidents pass the 'eye for an eye' test or is it simply mob rule, even when the police turn up.
Click to expand...

Exactly.. Since when is robbery punishable by death? Perhaps beheadings should become the street law of the West too? Why condem ISIS when some here are no better.
 
I don't believe in the eye for an eye test as you call it. To be effective the punishment for any crime should (when possible) be much worse than the crime. Anything less is not enough of a deterrent, Punishment should also be swift. Our system allows such long delays it makes a mockery of justice. You liberals put much effort in defending the criminals rights and don't give a thought to the rights of the victim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top