Is vigilantism a good thing?

Northside Storm · May 12, 2010

We have movies and shows like Dexter and Batman, V for Vendetta etc. that run down to the noble, tragic vigilante cleaning the streets from the garbage the judicial system refuses to clean. I guess there's something compelling about people operating just within the gray zone of morality but does what happens in show biz transcend to society at large?

Our entire judicial system is based on an eye for an eye so it is only natural that a part of this seeps into our individual values as well. Does this make vigilantism right though? Inherently, it implies a distrust of the judicial system and of gouvernment in general that implies violating established rational judicial conventions for irrational emotional outbursts. It is also a strict violation of Kantian principles. Even given "right" and "just" motives, a society where everyone feels they are justified to kill/hurt others would be implicitly irrational and destabilized. Not to mention the fact that violence tends to breed more violence...it's a hard topic to consider because there are a lot of positives as well.

Action over apathy. Emotional closure for victims of heinous crimes. An implication that even those privileged/rich/lucky enough to escape the judicial system with terrible sins will not escape the principle that "what goes around comes around." I'm personally torn on this, so I think it makes an excellent topic to debate. Are there degrees to vigilante justice? Is it permissible under certain circumstances but frowned on upon others? Or should it be absolutely forbidden?

Just an example that can be used as a typical case study...

Jonathon Edington, a 29-year-old patent attorney, allegedly snapped after his wife told him their next door neighbor had molested their 2-year-old daughter.

Edington’s wife and daughter were out of town when she broke the news to him over the telephone. After Edington hung up the phone, he allegedly went next door, climbed through a bedroom window, and stabbed 59-year-old Barry James to death while his elderly parents were in the house.

When the story first broke a few months ago, the media seemed to have labeled this a case of “vigilante justice,” almost endorsing the defendant’s actions by seeming to cheer and applaud and say, “If someone did this to your kid, wouldn’t you kill him too?”
Click to expand...

weslinder · May 12, 2010

To you're general question interesting take that I mostly agree with:

Alan Moore’s Watchmen remains a stirring warning against absolute power

By: Franklin Harris

You can tell a work of fiction is influential when other writers are still grappling with its implications nearly a quarter of a century later—usually with limited success.

Since its publication in the mid-1980s, Watchmen has been the poster child for pop art that transcends its origins. Having garnered accolades usually reserved for highbrow literary fiction, Watchmen is the reason we now refer to comic books as graphic novels. It birthed countless newspaper stories with unfortunate headlines like “Bam! Pow! Comic books aren’t just for kids anymore.” It changed the aesthetics of superhero comics, both for better and for worse. And this year, of course, it inspired a major motion picture that, if nothing else, perplexed audiences expecting the next "Dark Knight" or "Iron Man".

While Iron Man and The Dark Knight both deal with issues of power and corruption, they ultimately side with their vigilante protagonists. Superheroes, those movies tell us, are a good thing. “Watchmen,” however, remains admirably faithful to its source material and comes to a different conclusion. Its costumed crusaders are, at best, powerless when it comes to doing good and, at worst, make the world a far more dangerous place. If, as Lord Acton said, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then unaccountable superhumans with near God-like powers are not necessarily a good thing. Like a powerful central government that is able to dominate local governments or an imperial presidency that co-opts powers properly belonging to Congress, superheroes upset existing power structures. “Who watches the Watchmen?” is a question with no obvious answer.

It is little surprise, then, that anti-statists have latched onto Watchmen, claiming it, along with the works of Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein, and the 1960s cult-favorite television series The Prisoner, as part of libertarianism’s artistic canon.

The graphic novel, written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, is set in an alternate 1985 in which the existence of superheroes has turned the United States into a virtual dictatorship. President Richard Nixon, having engineered the repeal of the 22nd Amendment, is in his fifth term, and corruption and chaos are rampant. As gangs terrorize the streets, the U.S. and the Soviet Union plunge toward seemingly inevitable nuclear annihilation.

The main point of divergence between our 1985, which turned out comparatively well, and the 1985 of Watchmen is the existence of Dr. Manhattan, the one costumed hero in the story who possesses superhuman abilities. With Dr. Manhattan’s help, the U.S. wins the Vietnam War, a victory that Nixon uses to become all but president for life. The Soviets, meanwhile, regard Dr. Manhattan as such a threat that they’re willing to risk nuclear war to avoid U.S. domination.

Dr. Manhattan, in short, changes everything. As one character in the graphic novel observes, “It is as if—with a real live Deity on their side—our leaders have become intoxicated with a heady draught of omnipotence-by-association, without realizing just how his very existence has deformed the lives of every living creature on the face of this planet.”

Dr. Manhattan is the literal embodiment of amoral power. Following the accident that gives him his superhuman abilities, he gradually becomes more and more removed from his humanity. Time, for him, has no real meaning because he can see past, present, and future simultaneously. As a result, death has no meaning for him, either. Thus he is the perfect tool for the politicians who seek to exploit him.

The U.S. government in Watchmen maintains a monopoly on superheroes. A law bans costumed adventurers except for those who work for the state, namely Dr. Manhattan and the more aggressively amoral Comedian. The only masked crimefighter working illegally is Rorschach.

Of the characters in Watchmen, Rorschach comes closest to being a libertarian, although Moore’s portrait of libertarianism isn’t exactly flattering. Rorschach is brutal, malodorous, and, most importantly, psychotic. Moore bases him on The Question and Mr. A, two characters created by Spider-Man co-creator Steve Ditko, an adherent of Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy. Despite his antiauthoritarianism, Moore is still a man of the political Left, and his Rorschach is a not-at-all-subtle critique of Ditko’s “right-wing” libertarianism.

There are positive character traits hidden beneath Rorschach’s psychosis, however. Rorschach believes in truth and justice, and he is uncompromising in his pursuit of them, which is why he continues to work outside of the law even after the government criminalizes costumed vigilantism. He is, whether Moore likes it or not, the moral center of Watchmen, and readers—not just libertarians—gravitate toward him. Rorschach may be insane, but at least he sticks to his principles, even in the face of death.

Even as Moore’s Rorschach was capturing readers’ imaginations in 1986, Frank Miller’s daring interpretation of an old mainstay was doing the same, and for the similar reasons.

Published at about the same time as Watchmen, Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns covers many of the same themes and is no less influential. It casts a middle-aged Batman in the Rorschach role of uncompromising individualist and Superman in the Dr. Manhattan role of government stooge. Yet despite the dark tone of both works, the similarities between Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns end there. Moore’s only solution to the problem of Dr. Manhattan is for his superman to leave Earth, abandoning humanity to its own fate. Miller, however, has faith in superheroes, so long as it is the right superhero.

Miller’s Batman is a quasi-libertarian anarchist, a genius who, like the characters in Rand’s novels, uses his brain to thwart the brute, physical power of Superman and the state. Miller’s version of Batman as an ordinary man prepared to stand up to seemingly omnipotent power has endured, inspiring everyone from libertarians to politically apathetic comics fanboys to subsequent Batman writers

The libertarian/Randian themes are even more explicit in Miller’s 2001-2002 follow-up, The Dark Knight Strikes Again . In the sequel, Miller introduces Ditko’s The Question as a mouthpiece for Objectivism, of sorts. The difference here is that Miller’s version says, “I’m no Ayn Rander! She didn’t go nearly far enough!”

But can antistatists put their faith in even a libertarian superhero? The treatment of Batman post-Miller raises lots of red flags. Just as Miller’s Batman developed a contingency plan to take down Superman, Batman, as portrayed in more recent comics, has formulated plans to deal with just about any superhero who, for whatever reason, might go bad. Unfortunately, time and again, Batman’s plans have fallen into the wrong hands, with disastrous results. For example, in the recent series Countdown, Batman creates Brother Eye, an artificial intelligence to watch over all of Earth’s superpowered heroes and villains. As one might guess from Brother Eye’s Orwellian name, this ends badly when a covert government agency takes control of the AI for its own purposes.

As a new generation of comic-book writers embellishes the ideas Moore and Miller first explored, it seems there is need for a critique of even “libertarian” superheroes. Ultimately, even superheroes who operate without government sanction, so as to preserve their independence and integrity, run into problems because they still serve a law-enforcement function. They’re still appendages of the state, if only unofficially.

Marvel Comics’ recent Civil War story arc illustrates the point. After a battle in which a team of young superheroes accidentally kills 600 civilians, the political leaders in Marvel’s fictional universe take a page from Watchmen. They pass a law banning all costumed superheroes except for those who agree to register with and work for the federal government. The Superhuman Registration Act splits the superhero community, with pro-registration heroes lining up behind Iron Man and anti-registration heroes backing Captain America.

Although it is never spelled out explicitly in Civil War, the pro-registration side has a point. What are superheroes anyway, except unauthorized, unaccountable law-enforcement agents? Superheroes don’t obtain search warrants. They don’t read suspects their Miranda rights. If they screw up, they don’t face disciplinary action. And it’s almost impossible for a wronged party to sue them for misconduct. Just try serving a court summons to the Hulk. In short, all of the real-world problems associated with police misconduct are potentially worse when it comes to superheroes. They exist outside the rule of law.

Against that possibility, the Superhuman Registration Act seems, in libertarian terms, the lesser of two evils. Of course, the lesser evil is still evil. Any law that can be abused eventually will be abused. In our world, Republicans constantly pass laws they would never trust Democrats to enforce and vice versa. Each side, when out of power, complains that the other is abusing the powers of government. Yet when they swap places, the incoming party never repeals the laws that the other side abused.

In the Marvel Universe, Iron Man currently finds himself on the outside, on the run and wanted for crimes he didn’t commit. Meanwhile, the villainous Green Goblin, in his civilian identity of Norman Osborn, has become leader of the government’s registration effort. If there is any consolation, it’s that Iron Man may have learned his lesson.

For all their efforts, no one writing superhero comics has yet come up with an answer to Moore’s critique of superhero power. Moore’s own solution isn’t really conducive to writing ongoing superhero comics. He sends Dr. Manhattan packing. Dr. Manhattan decides to leave our galaxy—end of story. When all else failed, Moore opts for abolition, which is, of course, what one would expect of any anarchist, of either the left-wing or the anarcho-capitalist variety.

Perhaps that is why Watchmen maintains its resonance with libertarians, despite Moore’s antipathy toward much of libertarian thought. Unlike Miller, Rand, Ditko, and others who gave us idealized libertarian supermen who could fly in and save the day, Moore takes a more radical, yet more realistic approach. His hero-turned-villain, Ozymandias, is named so as to evoke the image of the broken idol in Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poem of the same name. Essentially, Moore is telling us to put not our faith in idols, even if they’re wearing a smile and spandex.

The Watchmen movie and the renewed interest in the graphic novel couldn’t have been better timed. Several comic-book artists have taken to depicting President Barack Obama in superheroic terms. Alex Ross’s painting of the president striking a Superman pose emblazons posters and T-shirts. Spider-Man and Obama do the fist bump in a recent issue of Amazing Spider-Man. And for his part, the new president seems happy to play up his heroic image, as when he posed with the statue of Superman in Metropolis, Illinois.

Whatever your politics, if you’ve grasped the message of Watchmen, images like that ought to have you worried.
Click to expand...

I think some amount of vigilantism is inevitable. Because we don't want to live in a police state, our police will be generally poor at protecting people, and fair at best at administering justice. So some people will be frustrated and take justice into their own hands. We should punish it, but we should recognize it for what it is and consider it in potentially reducing sentences and such. "He needed killing" shouldn't be a valid defense, but if someone's actions are in response to injustice done to them (or their neighbors), that should be considered in sentencing.

To this specific instance, I don't think I could send a guy to jail for killing a man who raped his two-year-old daughter. If there was ever a justifiable homicide, that's a justifiable homicide.

justtxyank · May 12, 2010

Batman and V for Vendetta (can't say on Dexter) do not glorify the vigilante though. They are both presented as dark figures and the end result for either can never be happiness. Neither promotes the value of vigilantism, but rather proposes the idea that a society can be so corrupt that one person must take up the "cape and cowl" in order to move others to demand justice.

rockbox · May 12, 2010

I think this quote is fitting

Chris Rock said:

I'm not saying he should have killed her, but I understand
Click to expand...

Rocketman95 · May 12, 2010

yes, provided we all receive training in how to find sim cards from suspects' stomachs.

ima_drummer2k · May 12, 2010

Groogrux said:

yes, provided we all receive training in how to find sim cards from suspects' stomachs.
Click to expand...

I always forget...does that come before or after the titty-twister via pliers.

Invisible Fan · May 12, 2010

I think there's an undercurrent of frustration among all of us in how justice is administered. Whether it's a corrupt and crony government or a police force that can't do much right.

In accepting or passively condoning vigilantism, we like to romanticize the act as promoting "our cause" or representing the unheard. But sometimes the best way to become heard is shedding light on those who can't bring attention unto themselves.

We're in a specific demographic where knowledge, information and possibly money is at our fingertips. There's no justification for us to invoke or accept violence in order to accomplish a lazy and fleeting sense of bloodlust or justice.

weslinder said:

To this specific instance, I don't think I could send a guy to jail for killing a man who raped his two-year-old daughter. If there was ever a justifiable homicide, that's a justifiable homicide.
Click to expand...

What if he gets angry and murders again?

We could've spared that person's life (and the rapist's...) if the murderer received proper treatment.

Heck, I'd feel the same way, but sometimes these thought exercises leaves out unintended consequences.

weslinder · May 12, 2010

Invisible Fan said:

What if he gets angry and murders again?

We could've spared that person's life (and the rapist's...) if the murderer received proper treatment.

Heck, I'd feel the same way, but sometimes these thought exercises leaves out unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

My reaction isn't logical, it's emotional. I wouldn't support the death penalty for a child rapist, so logically I shouldn't support a reactionary murder of a child rapist. It's still honest. Were I on a jury where a man admitted to killing a man who raped his 2-year-old daughter, I couldn't vote to convict. Were I his judge, I couldn't send him to jail.

To be fair, though, I would think that many people who wouldn't murder under any other circumstance could be driven to it by their young child being raped.

txppratt · May 12, 2010

<a target='_blank' title='ImageShack - Image And Video Hosting' href='http://img100.imageshack.us/i/thecoon.jpg/'><img src='http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2205/thecoon.jpg' border='0'/></a>

Os Trigonum · Jan 14, 2021

Haymitch · Jan 14, 2021

Damn I thought we were seeing the triumphant return of Northside Storm

Forums

Is vigilantism a good thing?

Northside Storm Member

weslinder Member

justtxyank Member

rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

ima_drummer2k Member

Invisible Fan Member

weslinder Member

txppratt Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Haymitch Custom Title

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Is vigilantism a good thing?

Northside Storm Member

weslinder Member

justtxyank Member

rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

ima_drummer2k Member

Invisible Fan Member

weslinder Member

txppratt Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

Haymitch Custom Title

Share This Page

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member