Tsumi to Batsu no Spica - Ch. 9 - The Last Job (6)

[StormSen]

Because it is revenge instead of lawful punishment.

Now it is your turn to state WHY vigilantism is RIGHT.

You haven't said anything about why vigilantism is wrong. You've just reasserted that it's wrong.

What I'm doing here is giving you a chance to demonstrate that you have thinking that's deeper than "Vigilantism is wrong." If can explain in some detail, then we can see whether or not it's still wrong in the current circumstance.

But it seems like your brain is stopping at "Vigilantism is bad." and considering that to be "job done".

What if society is so small that laws are not defined? What if the laws are fundamentally unjust ("Left handed people are evil and will be executed.")? What if the laws are fine, but the justice system is utterly corrupt and those with power can get away with murder? What if the method of determining guild or innocence is fundamentally flawed, and evil people are being let free, while innocent people are being convicted? All of those are questions that you should be able to answer if you've thought carefully about it.

 

[Squall_Leonhart]

And what's wrong with vigilantism? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like you to explain it. And then say if the problems with vigilantism apply in this case.

its rooted in an emotional response and a personal definition of morality, and inherently wrong because the wrong person may be the target of vigilantism.

Theres no such circumstance here, everyone spica has assisted towards hell was going there anyway.

 

[Doodads]

And what's wrong with vigilantism? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like you to explain it. And then say if the problems with vigilantism apply in this case.

Vigilantism is fundamentally incompatible with Law, and humans NEED laws to exist as a society. It doesn't matter if there are people who use loopholes to get around those laws, nor does it matter how an individual feels about those laws, vigilantism is wrong because laws are what allows us to live as a society.

Vigilantism is "justice" according to the beliefs of an individual. But if it is up to an individual to determine what is right and wrong, how can you be sure that your neighbour won't kill you in your sleep? How can you be sure that anyone else shares your own personal view of "justice" and won't try to kill you if they think you did something "wrong"? How can you live alongside humans who don't share your own beliefs?

Here's a challenge for you: tell me how someone who killed the guy who raped their wife should be treated differently from someone who killed the guy who stole their lunch, without basing yourself on your personal values. Can you do it?

 

[wallsg]

Vigilantism is fundamentally incompatible with Law, and humans NEED laws to exist as a society. It doesn't matter if there are people who use loopholes to get around those laws, nor does it matter how an individual feels about those laws, vigilantism is wrong because laws are what allows us to live as a society.

Vigilantism is "justice" according to the beliefs of an individual. But if it is up to an individual to determine what is right and wrong, how can you be sure that your neighbour won't kill you in your sleep? How can you be sure that anyone else shares your own personal view of "justice" and won't try to kill you if they think you did something "wrong"? How can you live alongside humans who don't share your own beliefs?

Here's a challenge for you: tell me how someone who killed the guy who raped their wife should be treated differently from someone who killed the guy who stole their lunch, without basing yourself on your personal values. Can you do it?

You've answered this better than I can. Your first paragraph sums up my beliefs.

We have to have laws that must be obeyed even if you don't like them or we end up with the strongest group's "what we say is a crime is a crime" being enforced over everyone else's. One of these laws is that only the government is allowed to met out punishment for crimes. If you don't like the law then get it changed.

 

[fflogschampion]

Here's a challenge for you: tell me how someone who killed the guy who raped their wife should be treated differently from someone who killed the guy who stole their lunch, without basing yourself on your personal values. Can you do it?

These are false equivalences. Getting even would be raping the guy who raped their wife, or stealing the lunch of the guy who stole your lunch. These are still crimes before our modern law but I don't think most people here would disagree with these retaliations in degree and scale. The moment someone is extrapolating the equivalence into something else without negotiation with the other party then you're bringing personal values into question.

Still, vigilantism is criminalized because it might feed into a cycle and cause more disorder. Legal courts are supposed to be a neutral party and mediate punishment based on the severity of crimes according to what was previously defined by the law. If equal punishment cannot be delivered, and there are multiple reason to not adhere to the old costumes and feed into more animosity for the sake of reparation, this where reparation is sought through other means. The law is supposed to preserve the peace and safety of the citizens instead of promoting more conflict.

 

[Doodads]

These are false equivalences. Getting even would be raping the guy who raped their wife, or stealing the lunch of the guy who stole your lunch. These are still crimes before our modern law but I don't think most people here would disagree with these retaliations in degree and scale. The moment someone is extrapolating the equivalence into something else without negotiation with the other party then you're bringing personal values into question.

They are not false equivalences at all, these are exactly the same crime. Both are examples of vigilantism, and both are murderers. THAT is the point I'm trying to make. And even worse, you tried to pass off YOUR personal beliefs as common sense or a commonly agreed opinion. You are proving the exact point I was trying to make.

Still, vigilantism is criminalized because it might feed into a cycle and cause more disorder. Legal courts are supposed to be a neutral party and mediate punishment based on the severity of crimes according to what was previously defined by the law. If equal punishment cannot be delivered, and there are multiple reason to not adhere to the old costumes and feed into more animosity for the sake of reparation, this where reparation is sought through other means. The law is supposed to preserve the peace and safety of the citizens instead of promoting more conflict.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about: who decides when equal punishment cannot be delivered? At what point is vigilantism okay and when is it not? By definition that question cannot be answered objectively, because it would then become law and not vigilantism. You cannot and should act on the assumption that your personal beliefs take precedence over the law, because the moment you do, you are a criminal. It doesn't matter why you did it or what your victim did, you are now on the same level as they are and will be treated as such.

I think you are confusing vigilantism with revenge, or the "An eye for an eye" philosophy. Vigilantism is NOT the same as those things, although both of them are examples of vigilantism.

 

[StormSen]

Thanks @Doodads @fflogschampion @wallsg for answers.

This is a good summary of the need for standard law, and the problem with vigilantism, and how vigilantism may arise.

Still, vigilantism is criminalized because it might feed into a cycle and cause more disorder. Legal courts are supposed to be a neutral party and mediate punishment based on the severity of crimes according to what was previously defined by the law. If equal punishment cannot be delivered, and there are multiple reason to not adhere to the old costumes and feed into more animosity for the sake of reparation, this where reparation is sought through other means. The law is supposed to preserve the peace and safety of the citizens instead of promoting more conflict.

I'll add to that.
First, consider justice and law:

• First need is to provide justice. To define crimes, catch criminals, deliver justice.
• Provide an objective, standard, consistent law which applies to everyone.
• Have this carried out by an objective third party, whose judgement is not swayed by bias, corruption or social standing.
• That guilt/innocence be determined accurately. However, it is (usually) impossible to determine guilt/innocence with absolute certainty. But the alternative of only meting out punishment when absolutely certain is untenable, since it would result in the vast majority of (nearly certain) guilt remaining unpunished. So there is a tradeoff resulting in some innocents being punished.
• As for determining what is and isn't a crime... To a large degree this is not arbitrary (especially for violent crimes), but rather is generally agreed within a population. "Theft is wrong. Assault is wrong. Etc." The cornerstone of this is "If its not okay if it be done to me, then it's not okay for me to do it to someone else."
• In the end, what is and is not okay, is determined by society as a whole. If the law varies from that too much, then the citizens will start carrying out their own justice.

Vigilantism because legal system fails:

• Fundamental issue goes to my last point above: Is the law consistent with the judgements of citizens and society as a whole? If not, then expect vigilantism to arise with the support of the public. E.g. murder of Ken McElroy in broad daylight with multiple witnesses -- citizens took the law into their own hands when the law failed them.
• The problem here is not with vigilantism -- it's the legal/criminal system that failed.
• ...
• In short, vigilantism is correct when the legal/criminal system fails, and when the vigilante action is consistent with the judgment of citizens and society as a whole.

This case

• Tsumugi is correctly identifying the guilty parties. She is verifying that those individuals are unrepentant and have or would do the same thing again.
• She is correcting for a legal/criminal system that has been unable to determine/prove the guilt and character of these parties.
• Society as a whole would agree that justice has been served. (So this is not Tsumugi's arbitrary personal justice.)
• This vigilantism is okay.

 

[StormSen]

Vigilantism is fundamentally incompatible with Law, and humans NEED laws to exist as a society. It doesn't matter if there are people who use loopholes to get around those laws, nor does it matter how an individual feels about those laws, vigilantism is wrong because laws are what allows us to live as a society.

Vigilantism is "justice" according to the beliefs of an individual. But if it is up to an individual to determine what is right and wrong, how can you be sure that your neighbour won't kill you in your sleep? How can you be sure that anyone else shares your own personal view of "justice" and won't try to kill you if they think you did something "wrong"? How can you live alongside humans who don't share your own beliefs?

Here's a challenge for you: tell me how someone who killed the guy who raped their wife should be treated differently from someone who killed the guy who stole their lunch, without basing yourself on your personal values. Can you do it?

But makes a person a "vigilante" as opposed to just a criminal is that the vigilante is acting in accord with general ideas of justice. So accusations of "arbitrary personal choice" are incorrect. It's true that law is crucial to a society, but that law must be consistent with general consensus of justice in that society -- if it's not then vigilantism will naturally arise.

Secondly, "vigilante" is a person who is not acting out of personal revenge. So your example of "a man who killed the guy who raped his wife" isn't an example of vigilantism, but of revenge. The second example "lunch thief murder" is even less a case of vigilantism since this clearly does not fit societies idea of justice.

You've answered this better than I can. Your first paragraph sums up my beliefs.

We have to have laws that must be obeyed even if you don't like them or we end up with the strongest group's "what we say is a crime is a crime" being enforced over everyone else's. One of these laws is that only the government is allowed to met out punishment for crimes. If you don't like the law then get it changed.

Criminal law should is broken if it disagrees with general societies view of right and wrong. Government should provide a process where this happens naturally, but if it doesn't then vigilantism will arise in response to that failure. In the end, society as a whole is "the strongest group" and that is should/does determine the law.

 

[StormSen]

Those were all pretty long, here's what it boils down to:

1) Law should be consistent with the general consensus of society on justice. When law becomes too inconsistent with society's judgment, then vigilantism can and should arise to correct for that.

2) Suppose that you knew what Tsumugi was doing, and you were certain that she was correct in her judgements of guilt/innocence and "heart" of an individuals. And suppose that you knew of these cases, in which justice was served (when it otherwise never would be served) and where an innocent individual (the father) avoided an unjust execution. And you expect that Tsumugi will continue doing this. And thus will likely prevent more murders by executing proven murderers. Suppose that you had enough evidence to turn her in. Would you turn her in? (I'm not asking if you think you should turn her in, but rather would you actually turn her in.)

 

[Doodads]

But makes a person a "vigilante" as opposed to just a criminal is that the vigilante is acting in accord with general ideas of justice. So accusations of "arbitrary personal choice" are incorrect. It's true that law is crucial to a society, but that law must be consistent with general consensus of justice in that society -- if it's not then vigilantism will naturally arise.

If society as a whole really agreed with that, why was the death penalty abolished in so many countries? This is just one of many examples of why this "general idea of justice" is a critical flaw in your reasoning, because it's a fallacy built on how you perceive the world around you. You are projecting your own opinion onto others and you don't even realize it. As long as you don't understand that, we can't properly debate this.

 

[fflogschampion]

I think you are confusing vigilantism with revenge, or the "An eye for an eye" philosophy. Vigilantism is NOT the same as those things, although both of them are examples of vigilantism.

Vigilantism is acting for justice from outside the law, it isn't necessarily murdering for justice. Batman is a very good example of a vigilante that didn't kill.

And I just used the "An eye for an eye" code as an example because the equivalence in that is perfect. Those things in general will almost always be perceived as just, even if illegal. The problem lies beyond that, in that something being just doesn't always end conflicts, that being the reason why proper laws were implemented in most societies.

 

[StormSen]

If society as a whole really agreed with that, why was the death penalty abolished in so many countries? This is just one of many examples of why this "general idea of justice" is a critical flaw in your reasoning, because it's a fallacy built on how you perceive the world around you. You are projecting your own opinion onto others and you don't even realize it. As long as you don't understand that, we can't properly debate this.

"Society as a whole" does not refer to "entire human population". Different countries have different societies. Hence different countries have different laws. Of course, it can be more granular than that, e.g. laws in the US can vary substantially between different states, with some states allowing the death penalty and others not.

I.e. suppose that I was going around killing murderers in a society that was absolutely opposed to the death penalty (i.e. where there was no substantial support for it). I wouldn't be viewed as a "vigilante" in that society, but rather as a murderer. Vs. if I were to do the same in a society which supported the death penalty, I would be viewed as a vigilante.

Note: Other than than your first (incorrect) sentence, the rest of your paragraph is just an ad hominen attack built on top of the incorrect first sentence. Best not to build ad hominems on shaky foundations. (Or better yet, avoid them entirely.)

 

[StormSen]

I think you are confusing vigilantism with revenge, or the "An eye for an eye" philosophy. Vigilantism is NOT the same as those things, although both of them are examples of vigilantism.

Vigilantism is acting for justice from outside the law, it isn't necessarily murdering for justice. Batman is a very good example of a vigilante that didn't kill.

And I just used the "An eye for an eye" code as an example because the equivalence in that is perfect. Those things in general will almost always be perceived as just, even if illegal. The problem lies beyond that, in that something being just doesn't always end conflicts, that being the reason why proper laws were implemented in most societies.

• If a person acts in response to a harm to themself, then that's revenge, not vigilantism.
• "Vigilantism is acting for justice from outside the law" < I agree
• "Eye for an eye" only proscribes the level of punishment to be administered. It might be part of the legal system (Code of Hammurabi), might be carried out by a vigilante, or might be personal revenge, depending on who carries it out.

 

[Anothis]

The TV guy says for the murder of Anita's mother, I think it's supposed to say Anita's wife

It's more accurate to say it's probably "mother and children of the Anita family"

 

[a_other_alt]

A hiatus this early... please don't axe this..

 

[poopy420]

Man this was such a emotionally heavy chapter.
Detective finally realizing his inner demons and still dying with regrets as a person and a detective.
Spica told him everything and that line "i understand others hearts but cant understand my own" really hits hard.
The last few panels really hit hard. Anita till this day wears mask with depression inside and hurting everyday for his wife & kids with nothing but regret on what he did at the time while he had a beautiful family. Poor guys just broken sigh
Also that page with the cat and mr detective hit the feels (i forgot that poor cat got dragged in that teachers stupidity too)
This manga hurts but still an enjoable read

 

[the_zrn172213]

Damn.