Or they turn out not to even be a thief. A lot of the time, vigilante justice ends up not being true justice at all.

Sometimes official justice turns out not to be real justice. Sometimes the whole institution is corrupt, sometimes it's corrupt this time, sometimes it just makes mistakes.

That's not an argument for or against vigilantism, just that justice is tricky.

It is an argument against vigilantism because there is at least some process in place to hold the official justice system accountable for its mistakes.

Obviously, I'm playing devils advocate a little, but I don't like this line of thinking.

It's kind of deifying the official. If the official process sucks, then it sucks. At least there is some process in place to hold the official justice system accountable only counts (in my eyes) if and when that works.

I think there's a stretch of an analogy to the current refugee crisis. On one hand we have this official set of ideals in laws and institutions. The principles are clear enough. Refugees need to be assessed fairly and settled in safe places.

In the other hand we have selfishness, bigotry and/or genuine practical objections mean that these do not produce a result. The reality is that taking refugees from some distant war on a different continent is politically a landline.

So, the official establishment ties itself in bureaucratic knots. Throttles and avoids the rock and the hard place.

Lets not forget that it's all people. Cops are people. Judges, Presidents, people.

Just because a system is not formalized doesn't means it works worse.

I'm struggling to discern your point here. I'm not arguing for the infallibility of official institutions, but how often do you imagine one mob can succeed in holding another mob accountable for its mistakes?

An official justice system does not have to allow for a process to be held accountable. Most ones seem to have something officially in theory, but we should remember, especially for the most disadvantaged of our society, in practice theory and practice aren't the same.

Also, a vigilante system can have a system to hold itself accountable as well.

A vigilante system is prima facie unaccountable, otherwise it's just another justice system

In which case we are working of significantly different definitions of justice/vigilante systems.

There is no definition of "vigilante system" that holds such systems accountable to society. If society were to hold such a system accountable it becomes codified into a true judicial system and is no longer "vigilante". These are inescapable definitions that are inherent to the very things they describe.

Then it sounds as if they are one in the same, like two sides of a coin being flipped throughout history.

Legal systems become corrupt and unaccountable, giving rise to vigilante systems. Those that survive long enough begin to improve as those involved seek to better the new systems. Eventually they reach the point of being the new legal system which slowly corrupts itself til it is beyond being held accountable, at which point it reverts back to a vigilante system that competes with new ones.

Perhaps the only issue is we should consider a different name from a vigilante systems that arise due to a corrupted legal system not meeting the needs of the populace vs the legal system itself that falls into a state where it is no longer held accountable.

I'm willing to bet you don't live in Perú.

Really what is it?

I had a conversation with someone from a country that does this type of thing. He said that false accusations are his main problem with mob justice.

I remember a mob going to assault a house in Argentina because a man was accused of molesting an elementary school student. The mob arrived angry and yelling and started vandalizing the house. A man tried to escape the house and he was caught and beaten. Took a bit for someone in the mob to say that was not the accused man.

The mob had the wrong house.

The same thing happens with an actual police force, though. Too much adrenaline and the "shoot first, ask questions never" mentality.

No! When this same problem happens to the police, it is standard practice to sweep it under the rug and provide some excuse that lets everyone know you're on the side of the Government.

It is only when we see this problem in the private sector, that we are then allowed to comment on how this is a problem and therefore private police can never work. /s

>Or they turn out not to even be a thief.

Even first world death penalty cases aren't a 100% certain, but we still murder the accused.

A legal justice system often ends up not being justice at all either. As some will point out, it is a legal system more than a justice system.

What then is the difference between a vigilante justice system and a legal system? It seems to me to be an issue of popularity, not of results nor legitimacy.

I trust the legal system a hell of a lot more than a lynch mob. In court, I get representation and evidence is considered in a rational and impartial way. The legal system is not perfect, but its way better than being subject to the whims of a mob.

Depends who you are and where you are. A middle class individuals in the modern day US justice system? Unless the US Gov is going after you for a particular reason, then you are probably going to have a great chance of a fair trial. But there are many other cases where there is no greater chance of justice with the official system than with a vigilante system.

All you're arguing is that very bad legal systems are about as bad as a vigilante system, which I agree with. The solution should be to try and reform the legal system, as a vigilante system will never be viable. Even in the interim, it's not like the vigilante system is better.

What if the vigilante has been forced into vigilanteness as a victim of circumstance and misfortune?

And its not that south America does not have enough death squads.

What next PIRA style Kneecapping or a 50/50 for those in the community you don't like