Rehabilitating Vigilantes & Vigilantism

Identity Crisis

I have to confess something, which will not necessarily come as a surprise to many who know me, or even to some casual readers of these pages.

I have a morally-challenged ambivalence toward vigilantism. Basically stated, I feel there are good vigilantes and bad vigilantes. The problem is, like in many other areas, the good and bad resides in the eye of the beholder. And both probably are found on slippery slopes. 'Good' and 'Bad' vigilantes are as elusive as are concepts of true 'justice'; even more so because vigilantism is often practiced outside the courts where there is a presence of codified law and a respect for balance presentation of fact.

As a form of enforcement or punishment, vigilantism holds an enduring and problematic place in the history, especially U.S. On the one hand the vigilante purports to fight for justice and what is deemed "right"; on the other he is necessarily mired in a criminality that actually threatens the system of "law and order" which he claims to serve. I know it's a fine line I have to draw in this thread. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to explore whether a distinction can be made between good and bad Vigilantism.

For some, vigilantism is the solution. Where the law enforcement agencies have failed in their prosecution of criminal activities, it is thought that vigilante groups would tackle this problem by enforcing "community justice". Vigilantism is therefore seen as a concerted community response when formal legal institutions have failed to address the chaos of epidemic which engulfs them. Having therefore lost faith in the power of such systems and desiring to repossess the security he feels he has lost, the citizen-prey-turned-citizen-predator seizes law 'into his own hands' in his pursuit for justice. The vigilante is embedded in the American popular imagination as a hero who legitimizes violent criminal reaction to criminality. In our history, vigilantism was the ultimate resort when the legal systems that protect against victimization and the systems that implement justice for the victimized were seen to have been primitive, poorly formed, overwhelmed and inadequate in their chaotic environment. 'Frontier justice was meted out for cattle rustlers. Good. Mistakes were made. Bad. But bad mistakes are sometimes made by all legal and judicial systems, which are by definition, imperfect.

This analysis, however, does not reckon with the premium that is put on the values of procedural fairness, impartiality and procedural safeguards in a liberal society. A liberal society is concerned as much with means as with ends. There are certain means that are impermissible in civil societies regardless of whether they yield, in the short run, desirable outcomes. Arbitrary violence of vigilante groups is one such means. Even if it is true that vigilantism helps curtail violence, if their chosen means of operation is violent, their activities become inconsistent with liberal values and have to be deplored.

It therefore goes against the grain of modern civilized practice to tacitly recognize the powers of an unregulated militia to impose and carry out capital punishment outside the official processes of the legal system, and often without conclusive evidence of guilt. A society that values the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life would take extra precautions to ensure that the state does not sanction the taking of human life without adequate procedural safeguards and without ensuring that the process is conducted consistently with the law.

But there is a place for vigilantism. Vigilante groups are operative in most countries. The difference is that in majority of countries these groups act within the law; they participate by positioning themselves to observe and report of crime; they apprehend criminals and transfer their custody to duly constituted law enforcement agencies which have the responsibility of prosecuting and punishing the offenders. There definitely is a linkage between a vigilante state of mind and the 'mind of state' that makes community members responsible for crime management. Just look on it as 'outsourcing' or 'privatising' law enforcement. That's legit, ain't it?

So, I postulate here that there is still a role for this kind of vigilante activity, but only when the law enforcement agencies are not adequately deployed.

No doubt, the government needs to do more to restore the faith of the populace in the ability of the police to protect their lives and property. Nonetheless, the government has a duty to ensure that the activities of vigilante groups are confined to the narrow scope of assisting in the apprehension of suspected criminals. This would include so-called bounty hunters. These groups should not be allowed to usurp the prosecutorial and judicial functions of the state. The dissociation of means from ends, which is advocated by some (bad) vigilantes, would lead to the subversion of those cherished values (of fairness, civility, liberty, and freedom) which should be the aims of any decent liberal society.