the punisher

i know this is a marvel comic book character, but i thought that since its a fairly realistic comic book, we should delve more into the moral debate of Frank Castles' hijinx. (for those of you who dont know, the punisher kills evil criminals.) ok, now, the punisher doesnt kill all criminals, only mobsters and murderers and rapists and drug dealers. I think that he actually does the right thing. (or i dont know about right, but i agree with him. mostly.) he usually just targets criminals who get out of jail through loopholes in the law, so no biggie. and its not like anyones gonna miss the people he killed. so im pretty sure hes doing good work. but i dunno. anyone got any thoughts?

(btw, i wasnt exactly sure where this thread should go, so sry if i put it in the wrong spot.)

I agree with him, but it's hard to. It's nobody's place but the law's to deal with criminals, but when the law doesn't work, who else is there? The movie "Boondock Saints" is about the same thing, two brothers who take it upon themselves to kill mob bosses and such. (Great movie, by the way.) I wouldn't say I condone his actions, but I wouldn't really condemn them.

Also, with "vigilante justice", it's hard to know who's really guilty and who was let off because they really were innocent, being framed, whatever.

I tell you what, if I was Nicole Brown's dad, O.J. would damn sure be dead right now.

He wears a bright white skull on his shirt and expects not to be seen at night. :confused:

As was stated, it's called "Vigilantism" and it's generally frowned upon in civilized societies because we believe in the rights to a fair trial, which is not given in this case. As I'm opposed to the death penalty for any number of reasons, I do not agree with it, and there is no guarantee that the person ACTUALLY committed the wrong. I admit there are problems in our judicial system, but I think something like that would only cause a further disintegration, if people begin taking the law into their own hands, then what power does the law possess?

I watched the movie (recently), never really knew about the comic books... wasn't really that great of a movie either...

Edit: OMG I'm so sorry, i thought I as posting in the Lounge section... I'm so tired. ;_;

If there was some way to ALWAYS be right about a person's guilt, then I wouldn't mind so much vigilantism. But until we get effective psychics, or some really cool mind-reading machine, that isn't going to happen. And to be wrong, *EVEN ONCE*, is the danger that all vigilante "justice" risks. Then again, so do normal courts, just look at all the cases that DNA evidence is turning upside down. Scary.

So, vigilantism is wrong, but it hovers near the edge of grey. Enough that some people could sympathize, if not condone, the acts they take.

Of course, one should note the difference between vigilantism and good ol' fashion retaliatory vengence. Something that's FAR more grey than just vigilantism.

my neighbour stole my watch, so i blew his brains all over the wall. then i found my watch behind the couch. what bad day that was.

there was man lynched a while ago for being a paedatrician and people though he was a pedophile because they were retards. is condoning this kind of action what you want?

why not just get rid of the police and shoot whoever we feel is guilty? would save a lot of tax payers money if everyone just got to shoot anyone presumed guilty. would give all those judges a good day off too.

so why don't we have vigilante violence? because shooting people on the presumption of guilt is hardly moral now is it?

anyway i'm off to shoot the guy across the road for killing kennedy he was giving me shady looks earlier i'm sure it was him.

I think you're blowing the premise a little out of proportion, Cloud.

I'd second that.

A man was lynched "a while ago" because people thought he was a pedophile? What country was this in?

This thread isn't referring to petty criminals like thieves, it's referring to murderers, mobsters, perhaps rapists. And it's not talking about whoever we think did something, it's about criminals who slipped through the legal system on loopholes and such. Somebody, say, like O.J.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Somebody, say, like O.J.

---

Hey, O.J. probably did it, but they didn't prove it. You can't kill someone on a "probably". If there were five people who were in O.J.s situation, then four of them are guilty, but the fifth wouldn't be, using a loose statistical guestimate. That's four dead guilty guys, and one dead innocent, is that math REALLY worth it?

o.j. simpson huh? a lovely topic. proves how much people forget. does noone remember the glove? that little prime piece of evidence which didn't fit his hand. and if it didn't fit his hand then how could he have used it? that was pretty much end of case as far as these things are concerned. that's not a legal loophole. it's the same loophole which would prevent a man with no arms being convicted of an armed bank robbery. a pretty huge loop-hole it's the second biggest one actually along side having an alaibi proving you were half way across the world at the time.

the "lynching" (the technical term escapes me) occured in britain i believe it was a year or two ago.

legal loop-holes exist for a reason, not because noone has thought to patch it up.

you can't go round killing people because you suspect them.

my previous post was based mostly on satire.

This post is complete sarcasm too, right? I'd hope so.

"o.j. simpson huh? a lovely topic. proves how much people forget. does noone remember the glove? that little prime piece of evidence which didn't fit his hand. and if it didn't fit his hand then how could he have used it?"

Let's see. 1.) The glove didn't fit his hand because he held his hand in such a way that it would be impossible to fit into almost any glove. 2.) Even if the glove would have been extremely tight on his hand, even if it took him five minutes to put it on, hell, even if he didn't get his hand into the glove all the way, he could have still worn it while he murdered two innocent people. 3.) The rest of the case consisted of overwhelming evidence in support of the prosecution, enough to well overrule anything the defense had. 4.) O.J. wasn't acquitted on "well we don't think he's guilty", he was acquitted on "hey, he's black, and black people deserve a break, so he should go free".

As for your "lynching", a "lynching" is when a mob forms and has somebody hanged. I doubt this has happened for quite a while in any civilized country. And I don't think anybody would confuse a children's doctor with a child molestor, unless somebody was both.

The glove was also made of leather, and soaked in blood.

Alright, now, first person to answer this gets... well, nothing, but somebody answer it anyway--

What happens to leather when it's soaked?

OJ is obviously a murderer, but he walked because his lawyer played the race-card.

In theory, vigilanteism takes up where the law fails--in cases such as OJ's, for example, or involving Jesse James' gang, which managed to escape the law for a good while before they were shot to doll rags by a bunch of farmers and small-town businessmen in Northfield, Minnesota. And there were times (for example, in the Old West) when vigilanteism was the only form of justice available.

In practice, however, vigilantes may or may not start by executing murderers and rapists, and almost inevitably go on to settle old scores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

What happens to leather when it's soaked?

---

I'll answer that, but only 'cause I have more to say. Leather shrinks, sometimes up to 25% when exposed to a somewhat acidic liquid. Now, someone else wins the no-prize from me if they tell me whether human blood has an acidic pH ;).

Anyways, so, yes the evidence against OJ is overwhelming, but it truly is *possible*... quite unlikely, but POSSIBLE that he didn't do it. His ex and her new boyfriend had enemies of their own. Some more "professional" than others. Essentially, if OJ didn't kill them, someone else would have, so we can say whatever we like, there is ABSOLUTELY no way we can be sure, either way, without new evidence.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_49785.html

Quick search on Google came up with that, I had heard of it.

Whats the point of being a vigilante? If you argue that it is for some overall good then that is fairly bad maths, NEGATIVE PLUS NEGATIVE EQUALS BIGGER NEGATIVE (Two wrongs don't make a right). If you argue that you want a sense of justice, then presumably you are either arguing that it would make you feel better, or that some higher power demands justice. I doubt personally that commiting any act of violence actually makes someone feel better in the long run, and I don't know much theology, but I would suspect a god would probably be a more effective judge than any human...

If you have been hurt and want to get back at people that hurt you, then that is fairly normal, but it is vengence, not vigilantism. If you feel an actual want to harm others, no matter how 'bad' they are in your opinion, then perhaps you should be looking at your own morality before you start dealing with others.

I don't know, I do understand to an extent the motivation behind it, but I don't think it holds up to reason particularly well.