Vigilante justice is NEVER acceptable. Until someone has been justly tried, and convicted they innocent in the eyes of the law. Period, and no exception.
Devil’s advocate: Judicial systems throughout history have had varying levels of success. If a person repeatedly commits murder and is not held to account by the justice system, is it not acceptable for someone to kill them? The net result would be lives saved
There have been many instances throughout history where a person repeatedly commits unspeakable crimes, but is guaranteed immunity from whatever justice system exists in their society. Do you think it’s entirely unacceptable for them to receive vigilante justice?
Millions of North Koreans suffer and die under the Kim regime. If a vigilante were to assassinate him, millions of lives would be saved. Do you still contend it is unacceptable to do so? Keep in mind, everything Kim Jong Un has done is perfectly legal under the North Korean judicial system
If you question that interpretation of the result, let’s invoke Godwin’s Law. If one of the early assassination attempts on Hitler had been successful, WW2 could have been avoided (or at least made far more one-sided), saving tens of millions of lives. Would vigilante justice have still been unacceptable to you?
Seems incredibly amoral to state it’s preferable to allow a genocide than to extra-judicially murder the one perpetuating the genocide
Devil’s advocate: Judicial systems throughout history have had varying levels of success. If a person repeatedly commits murder and is not held to account by the justice system, is it not acceptable for someone to kill them? The net result would be lives saved
There have been many instances throughout history where a person repeatedly commits unspeakable crimes, but is guaranteed immunity from whatever justice system exists in their society. Do you think it’s entirely unacceptable for them to receive vigilante justice?
Millions of North Koreans suffer and die under the Kim regime. If a vigilante were to assassinate him, millions of lives would be saved. Do you still contend it is unacceptable to do so? Keep in mind, everything Kim Jong Un has done is perfectly legal under the North Korean judicial system
If you question that interpretation of the result, let’s invoke Godwin’s Law. If one of the early assassination attempts on Hitler had been successful, WW2 could have been avoided (or at least made far more one-sided), saving tens of millions of lives. Would vigilante justice have still been unacceptable to you?
Seems incredibly amoral to state it’s preferable to allow a genocide than to extra-judicially murder the one perpetuating the genocide
This dude was literally currently at trial for murder. That argument might apply AFTER someone has been wrongly acquitted.
This logic is literally NEVER applicable inside a court room, before the verdict has been read.