That's because a lot of the time they were corrupt. Just like the Samurai weren't some massively honourable bunch of noblemen standing up for what was good and proper.
I'm not sure that, even if true, it is relevant. The reason being that I find some anecdotal copper taking payments from local businesses etc (or whatever you have in mind for being corrupt) mutually exclusive from a person that is also regulating the petty criminals. Many times criminals themselves will keep things at a local level safe for the neighborhood, but also be involved in things like extortion and racketeering. However they do have the basic principles of protecting old and weak from violent muggers, drug dealers etc. Looking at organized crime you will see this, there is good with the bad. I am not saying I approve of the bad, but you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This is a very interesting brand of apologism. You said earlier on that your opinion will not be swayed. You have yours and it is obvious we are very much at different ends of the scale. I think I'll leave the conversation there for now. I'm not a fan of the police as an institution, for lots of boring reasons, but nor am I a fan of vigilantes
It is what I feel about many things, taking personal accountability rather than fixation upon an external criteria or rule book, as that I feel leads to people trying to exploit the system for their own gain, as they do not possess the accountability or desire to better their environment. But I do appreciate the other perspectives in this thread and whilst they are not at this point convincing me that my way should change, they are adding considerable value to my understanding of other peoples perspectives, so thanks for that.
This is absolutely NOT a system to put into place. Look at quality of life back in the 1800's and look at it now. I think your conception of the role of the police back then is skewed - well actually it is flat out inaccurate Would you be happy if I gave your brother a good kicking for being a loud obnoxious drunk? If it is about a paycheck I can earn the same or more for far easier and less dangerous work And even if it were the case, which leads to a more correct approach to following rules and behaving appropriately - someone who believes they are a guardian of all that is righteous or someone who wants to be able to pay their mortgage and look after their family? A police officers role is not to fix a society - that is for the government. Same for lawyers. The rules are set elsewhere, the players act according to those rules Source? A defence lawyers job is to ensure the prosecution is doing their job properly They get paid win or lose You are far too narrow in your scope - this definition only works in the US. Also does this not run absolutely contrary to the faith you have in a sheriff over a "big city" cop? Moral right and wrong is so ambiguous a term though and there is NO accountability at vigilante level. Question: if someone kicked your car and damged it, what would you consider an appropriate response/
Arguably (by which I mean I'd argue it) it's not governments role either, but societies role to fix society. Other then that agree with all you've said.
Fair point In the sense that a govt is (to all intents) representative of the people (ie elected) then in theory this is still the case However, theory and praxis and all that.....
Wow - i might be wrong here, but it looks like to me that you just out-argued yourself! You have actually put together a sound argument for an improved rehabilitation system based on a successful existing model, and i must applaud that. You have also implied - to which i concur - that violence and retribution have proven themselves to be seriously counter-productive. BUT are not the actions of Renzo Gracie a perfect example of violent retribution? Albeit without the legal process, opportunity to defend oneself in a court of law, and judgement from a dozen of one's peers. Sure it was this kind of vigilanteism (ie. violent retribution) that you were in support of earlier!! I won't call you inconsistent, as that would be insulting and dismissive. Rather, i think that the more research you are doing, the more you are realising how there are methods available out there that can improve the existing system without having to resort to random acts of barbarism to keep the population in check. I can only commend you for educating yourself. I will expand further on your point by saying that one of the problems that we face both in the UK and the US with regards our incarceration procedure is the difficulty of reintegration. During incarceration, a prisoner is effectively institutionalised to the point where there is such a massive gulf between them and the civilian world, that even after their debt to society has been paid, they continue to feel separated and shunned by society. Some of my closest friends and family have, due to reckless mistakes in their youth, ended up with a criminal record that will ALWAYS travel with them, and means they will ALWAYS be discriminated against. Essentially then, to get something as simple as a job (thus becoming a productive member of society), they must either lie to their employer, or risk losing their job. Even worse are the employers who abuse the fact that the ex-con is unlikely to find work elsewhere. Goals are even more unachievable than before, and putting a roof over your head, 3 square meals on the table, and keeping the electricity and water running seems like an impossibility. All of a sudden, you start missing life in your institution, and start hating life in the civilian world. Soldiers also find themselves in a similar situation, and i wouldn't be surprised if a large amount of suicides, drug addictions, and habitually destructive behaviour was down to the feeling that society just doesn't want you anymore (indeed, psychoanalytical studies in Japan have shown that a great deal of neurotic issues are caused by feelings of isolation and separation from group activity). That said, there are a growing number of studies and initiatives into re-integration and community bonding. As for being biased due to knowledge? Well, much of my knowledge on the subject is down to personal experience - having walked several miles on both sides of the law. I would imagine that between my reckless teenage years and the years spent as a close protection operative, it is quite possible that i have broken laws in a number of countries in the name of either self-preservation, the protection of my colleagues, the interests of my clients, or adolescent male posturing. So i would say that my opinions are based on a mixture of experiences. I am mature enough, however, to understand that any damage caused to others was either an unpleasant side effect, or an embarrassing consequence of misguided youth. These incidents are definitely not bragworthy achievements. And in addition i have dedicated over a decade to the study of violence, combatives, and criminal behaviour (the latter actually being the last 5 years). At any rate, i would certainly prefer to form my opinion based on knowledge and experience, than ignorance and emotion
...And by the way - cracked.com is actually more about comedy and entertainment. It is definitely not academically sound, and should NEVER be cited as a source if you want your argument to be taken seriously (however good it is!).
First of all, I am absolutely unwilling to make any blanket statements about vigilantism being morally inappropriate for a "free" society like America. I take it on a case-by-case basis and sometimes not only does the system fail to protect victims, it actually actively protects their abusers and facilitates further abuse to said victims. In those victims cases, in their minds, they can't see better choices because the American legal system grossly failed them. This does not appear to be one of those cases. I would love to believe Renzo's "lessons" instilled the fear to never attack another victim in his muggers. The reality though is that whatever broken mechanism in a mugger's life that drives them to steal professionally (drugs, absence of empathy, peer pressure, poverty, etc) are very unlikely to be resolved through a proper "raccooning." The only lesson that beating is likely to impart in those two yahoos is that two unarmed muggers is insufficient to safely steal. Their next victim will be increasingly likely to face more muggers, weapons, or to be chosen for their obvious physical vulnerability. And those muggers are probably now more prone to overreact in fear and accidentally hurt their next victim too. That said, I also don't blame Renzo for that. It was, unfortunately, eventually going to happen that they picked someone who wasn't going to play nicely as a victim. They just happened to pick the famous mixed martial artist who twittered their beat down. And I hope he gets away with it.
I don't own a car. But if someone kicked my dog, I would kick them back. Just my opinions here fella.
Arguably a semantic point as well, I'm not inclined to think that fixing society is a realistic part of anyone's agenda, too many variables and too many uncontrollable factors. Used to feel differently, these days I just try to do the job in front of me to the best of my abilities, and hope enough other people out there do the same. Slightly fatalist of me, I know, but I've had quite enough of worrying over what I can't change. Also barely relevant to the topic. I'm trying to think of an example to put across, regarding why it makes sense for the police to be the ones to take the lead on dealing with crime, and why the rest of us should focus on doing what we have to to stay safe and get away, or help others to do the same if immediately required. The best I can think of would be the difference between surgery and stabbing. The surgeon is trained to stab you in a manner that minimises the damage suffered and fixes something which is broken (laymans terms and hopeless optimism, the average surgeon has a fairly lackadaisical approach to trifling things like 'arteries' when they get in his way). If he fails in this, there's a system in place to hold him accountable, as a professional. If the surgeons in your area aren't very good, you don't get your mate to stab you and hope, you either move to a new area or try to push your local authorities to hire better surgeons. For the purposes of the analogy anyway.
I see us more as an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff as opposed to a fence at the top - or like a fire extinguisher. We are there IF needed, but would rather things didn't fall or burn
The problem is back in those days you wouldn't want to have much faith in them. Nobody did as at those times PDs were in their infancy and were plagued with corruption and political influences. There was no requirements and no formal training. I don't think I need to cover this considering my answer to the 1st question. Sufficient to say the average police officer today is worlds apart from the average police officer of the 1800s. I don't know where you got this tidbit but I wouldn't put much stock in it. Sufficient to say both laws and the community the officer is working in dictate how a particular incident is handled. Do you really believe cops in New Orleans are trying to arrest every drunk on Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras? Again - we tried that and it didn't work. Research the lynching of Henry Smith for a perfect example. Most of the public has a skewed view of what laws apply when as well. If I cut my foot off sure I can have my neighbor give me first aid, but I'd rather have the paramedics come and take care of me instead. Leave the work to someone who's trained to do it.
You might find this interesting. A study done from 1960-1982 discovered that 43.1% of those released from jail come back within the first year and almost 75% in 2 years. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=96625 A recent study by the Pew Center last year shows that in three years 43% on average return. http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2011/apr/13/prison-recidivism-rates-remain-high/ So actually recidivism rates are lower now than they were before. Depends on the person and situation. Some people get so sloshed and have nobody to take care of them that they would be a danger to themselves if they didn't have someplace safe to sleep it off. All depends on the state too. In Kansas it's legal to be drunk in public. In Pennsylvania it's a citation. In some other states it's an arrestable offense. More like $58,000 actually. And the benefits in most cases aren't all that. The amount of money I still owe for my wife's dental work is proof of that. No victm = no crime in this case.
Here's some lovely street justice. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203009/Guatemalan-child-killer-burnt-death-schools-patio-mob-rule-begans-Tactic.html
Worries me slightly that all I said aloud while reading that was 'that's not a right hook'. But yeah, pretty horrifying, anyone else get the impression that the mail published the article as their utopian dream?
