Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are two competing visions for society on issues of "law and order" and "equity and justice":
Boring, orderly and maybe a little repressive; or
Less predictable, less stable, but more favoring the rights of emotionally disturbed people to "be themselves."
The former view, which prevailed during the 1950's, the Giuliani and Bloomberg eras, no doubt had some injustices. I know, for example, on a confidential basis that a former New York State official, when doing him inspection job, was accosted by a police officer. When this official flashed his proof, the police officer said "and I'm the Queen of England" or something to that effect. Sometimes, no doubt, police officers reveled in their power, amounting to a firing squad and using excessive force. SeeAmadou Diallo Killed by Police in a Hail of 41 Bullets. Also, less egregiously, Bernhardt Goetz fired at one of his assailants a second time, allegedly saying "you don't look so bad, here's another one." These hark back to the Jim Crow era and are intolerable. When these events occur, society may be calmer but is it worth the sometimes obvious injustices.
By the same token, the legislatures of various states, including New York and Illinois, eliminate cash bail for most offenses, and prosecutors such as Alvin Bragg and Chesa Boudin decline to prosecute "property crimes." These prosecutors also criminally charge what is apparently self-defense, see Tragic Incident on NYC Subway: Self-Defense or Excessive Force? and Daniel Penny, charged with killing Jordan Neely. Recently under intense pressure, Bragg dropped murder charges against a bodega owner who killed a knife-wielding assailant in apparent self defense. In Haiti, vigilante justice has reached an extreme, but this is what people do in response to extreme lawless (link) (excerpts below):
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times
Civilians have killed at least 160 gang members in Haiti, a human rights group says. Residents say they feel safer, but others worry that it will lead to even more violence....
The gruesome executions on April 24 marked the start of a brutal vigilante campaign to reclaim the streets of the capital, Port-au-Prince, from gangs that have inflicted terror on Haitians for nearly two years.
In a nation wracked by extreme poverty and violence, civilians have taken up arms and killed at least 160 people believed to be gang members in the six weeks since a citizens “self-defense” movement known as “bwa kale” kicked off its vigilantism with the brazen police station attack, according to data gathered in a new report by a prominent Haitian human rights group.
The result: a sharp drop in kidnappings and killings attributed to gangs in neighborhoods where people told The New York Times they had been afraid to leave their homes.
The "Great Debate" question is how do we balance the rights and expectations of the majority of citizens to the quiet enjoyment of life and work, with the rights of others to not be the victims of random vigilante justice or self-help "policing"?
Simple: You may not inflict harm on others unless it is absolutely necessary to avoid a greater harm. Law should be followed, but in extreme corner cases, there is a judicial necessity defense. For example, an unlicensed person might be able to drive someone to the ER for a heart attack if the ambulances are not available. The necessity defense does not apply if legal and less harmful alternatives were available (for example, if the neighbor has a driver's license and was able and willing to do so.)
You Haiti example is tricky because it almost resembles a smaller-scale version of a war. Even with this line of reasoning, though, one is never justified in attacking obvious non-combatants.
The "Great Debate" question is how do we balance the rights and expectations of the majority of citizens to the quiet enjoyment of life and work, with the rights of others to not be the victims of random vigilante justice or self-help "policing"?
Simple. Enforce the laws.
If police, prosecutors, and judges did their jobs, there wouldn't be any criminals on the streets and no need for vigilante justice.
Tolerance of crime breeds and begets more crime. If you want less crime, then you need to be intolerant of crime and elect prosecutors and judges who are also intolerant of crime.
I don't mind getting pulled over by a cop for not using my turn signal. If he thinks he smells dope, let him call out the dope-sniffing dogs. If I'm operating within the legal bounds of the law, I'm not going to try to run or get mouthy. If I am not and do get ticketed/arrested, it's on me.
If robust police patrols will get the dope, guns, and those with warrants off the street, I'm willing to be inconvenienced by a stop now and then.
No safe/productive society can be maintained without order and stability.
Law and order, if applied justly and uniformly, ensures justice for all. Special justice reserved for certain groups claiming such a need, is in fact, totally unjust.
When it comes to rights, the same formula applies. Rights apply to individuals, and each right enjoyed by the individual extends up to and no further than when the exercise of the right violates the rights of another. Groups have no rights … because the only rights that a group can possibly exercise is no less or greater than the rights possessed by each individual within said group, because a group is nothing more than a collection of individuals.
Collectivism claims that the group is more important than the individual, and no concept ever conceived is more destructive of individual rights. And that is the insidious intention of collectivism itself. To destroy rights.
Law and order are the foundations of a safe and stable society.
The reason there is so much talk these days about equity and justice is because certain people want to break the law and get away with it. They want unfair advantages over other people.
If you can loot and steal from others and not be punished for it, then who wouldn't want to do that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
