Vigilantism
Vigilantism comprises the activities that are meted out to the offender or an individual suspected of committing an offense by the public members without the government authority. The phenomenon occurs when the member of the community take the law into their hands. The activity may also involve violence from the community members or even threats of cruel treatment without the actual violence.[1] The members may decide to apprehend a criminal despite them not having the legal authority to do so. Vigilantism arises when the members of the public hold the perception that the state is unwilling or unable to prevent or respond appropriately to crime in a particular neighborhood or among the groups. In the digital era, Creep Catchers have emerged as a crime control group that is targeting individuals who want to engage in sexual activities with children. By posing as minors over the social media, the Creep Catchers plan a meeting with the suspect, confronts them in public, shame them, and seek for police response.[2] Overall, citizens usually take the law into their hands in order to establish order in the community. Sometimes, the individuals may not provide the person alleged to have committed the crime the due process of the law.
Pros and Cons of Vigilantism
Pros
Vigilantism can have several advantages to the community and the victims of criminal activity. It can be a complement to an ineffective justice system. The current justice and law enforcement systems have deficiencies that hinder the control of crime in society. The justification of vigilantism is based on the perceived defects of the justice system regarding response to and prevention of crime.[3] The defects in the system support the application of vigilantism to manage criminal activities and enhance justice to the victims. Vigilantism can overcome the disadvantage of corruption within the justice and the law enforcement departments, which hinders the punishment of the offender as well as the retribution of the victim.
Vigilantism can help law enforcement officers in the collection of evidence that courts can use to make a fair ruling. The above scenario is evident in internet vigilantism. For instance, Creep Catchers usually record their interactions with the pedophiles, which acts as evidence that law enforcement officers can use to prosecute offenders.[4] The police may not be able to obtain such evidence without the assistance of the Creep Catchers. The anonymity of the internet makes it possible for some adults to exploit minors sexually. The law enforcement department may lack the elaborate measures required to capture the pedophiles. Overall, the courts can use records that vigilante groups provide to determine if the suspect is guilty.
Vigilante groups can deter crime by frightening the offenders who may have the intention of finding their way out of custody. For instance, pedophiles may be afraid of luring children over the internet because the vigilante members may pose as youths and capture them. The establishment of the community watching programs can augment the actions of the police. Nevertheless, the process may worsen if the members use excessive force or fail to collaborate with the police.
Cons
Vigilantism has several drawbacks despite some few benefits. The vigilante groups usually violate the rights of the suspect in most circumstances. The above situation happens when the neighborhood members subject the offender into cruel treatments, which involve inflicting pain and killing. Mobs usually torture an individual alleged to have offended without considering the weight of the crime.
Some recent incidents of vigilantism show how the actions can violate the rights of the suspects. In R v Vollrath, a vigilante group was convicted of kidnapping the suspect. Previously, the victim was blamed for not providing sufficient details regarding the accident that happened and led to the death of a child. Vollrath and other individuals went to the victim’s house dressed in law enforcement officers’ uniforms. They entered the residence, grabbed the victim, and took him to an isolated region, where they cut his thump[5]. Therefore, the current example shows how the vigilante groups can deviate from the law to inflict pain on individuals due to allegations of crime. In furtherance, the individuals in the vigilante groups end up committing other serious offenses while pretending to enforce the law.
Mostly, vigilante groups do not take time to determine the evidence supporting the allegation meted upon the suspect. In this regard, the groups deny the suspect the due process of the law. The current situation can result in the punishment of innocent individuals because the group does not take the necessary step to evaluate the evidence.
Another disadvantage of the vigilantism is the lack of accountability among the executors. The individuals should be liable for the punitive treatment of the offender, especially when he is found innocent after being punished by the community group. Nevertheless, it may be difficult to identify the members who broke the law when a large crowd is involved. The perpetrators of the vigilantism may end up escaping punishment after committing cruel activities, such as killing. The current step may be counterproductive because the individuals do not face the legal consequences of abuse of power.
Vigilantism may be motivated by other factors such as racism instead of the desire to control crimes in the society. Some individuals may act out of malice rather than goodwill. The current situation can have a detrimental impact because the suspect may receive unfair punishment.
Some individuals may justify the Creep Catchers on the basis that they record the videos as evidence. Nevertheless, the current situation cannot be taken as a reasonable justification for vigilantism. In some instances, the police have investigated the alleged offenders and found that the accusations were wrongful.[6] Therefore, the vigilante groups may provide evidence shows anti-suspect bias. The discovery of the innocence of the individual could be less helpful if the person had already served a sentence.
Besides, the Creep Catchers violate the privacy right of the party.[7] The individuals usually share personal information of the child predator without his or her consent. In furtherance, the vigilante groups operating over the internet can share the recorded video content that contains sensitive information about the person. Addresses and phone numbers exposed to other internet users can be utilized to harm the pedophile.
The online vigilantism can also have some drawbacks regarding the shaming of innocent people. Creep Catchers may obtain the wrong identity of the pedophile. The above situation can ruin the reputation of an innocent person if his information is exposed online. The defamation can also affect other aspects of life, including social relationships and occupation. The damage can be long-lasting if the investigations are not conducted to vindicate the innocent individual.
Overall, some vigilante groups engage in inhuman treatment against the alleged criminal. The process can be unfair if the offender is subjected to excessive punishment without reliance on substantial evidence. The situation might have a significant damaging effect, especially if the suspected offender was murdered or assaulted.
My Position and Rationale
I do not support all forms of vigilantism with the exemption of online vigilantism. As discussed in the previous subtopic, the disadvantages of vigilantism significantly outweigh the advantages. The vigilante groups compromise justice because they do not consider the disregard of the evidence when punishing the suspect. The situation results in inadequate due process. As such, vigilantes increase the likelihood of wrongful convictions, unfair trial, and the failure to punish the offender.
I do agree that vigilantism can be valuable to law enforcement departments. Nevertheless, I can support vigilantism if it meets several aspects of law and justice. First, the phenomenon should align with the current order in society. Second, vigilante groups should conduct their punishment safely and in a way that does not impede justice and law enforcement efforts. Nevertheless, the current conditions are unattainable even with well-intended vigilantism. The groups are highly likely to divert from the normal legal process. For instance, one of the situations involves the resident’s arrest of a criminal who has committed a violent crime. Citizens may have a high probability of exerting excessive force when arresting the felon and handing him over to the enforcement officers. The community members may not follow the strict guideline that the law may dictate. Therefore, even a vigilante group acting on goodwill can undermine the police efforts to maintain order in society.
I do not reject all forms of vigilantism. I support the Creep Catchers because their actions can help in deterring child sexual abuse. The use of the internet has become prevalent, and many minors are exploited by individuals who hide their identity. The advantage of the group is that it films the activities that happen during the meetup.[8] Although the group usually shames the pedophiles publicly, the process is ethical. Exposing the individuals is a good way of deterring future abuse of minors via the internet.
Nevertheless, ethical violations can occur in the instance of false identification of the child predator. Internet users may not indicate their real names during the online chat sessions. As such, the online vigilante groups may be likely to present the wrong identity of the person alleged to be a pedophile. The process can lead to defaming innocent people. Therefore, the online vigilante group should present the videos containing the evidence to the law enforcement officers for further investigation. They should avoid posting personal information over the internet because of the possibility of wrong identifications. The actions of the Creep Catchers can be justified as long as the group does not violate the rights of the child predator by exerting force. I believe that the police can harness valuable information by collaborating with the online vigilante groups. Conducting the cost-benefit analysis can justify the actions of the Creep Catchers. Undeniably, child sexual abuse has detrimental health effects on minors. Besides, the internet has become one of the avenues that child predators use. Overall, judicial application of the online vigilantism can have overall positive impacts concerning child sexual abuse.
The primary crime prevention focuses on identifying the antecedents of criminal activity and modifying them to lower the reoffending risks.[9] Unlike vigilantism, the criminal justice system can support the above principle through the rehabilitation process. Although the judiciary and law enforcement institutions have some deficiencies, the provision of the due process increases the fairness of a trial.
Bibliography
Griffiths, Curt T. Canadian Criminal Justice: A Primer. Toronto: Nelson, 2019.
Gross, Mark. “Vigilante Violence and “Forward Panic” in Johannesburg’s Townships.” Theory and Society 45, no. 3 (2016): 239-263.
R v Vollrath. “R v Vollrath, 2016 ABPC 258.” CanLII, accessed June 21, 2020, https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2016/2016abpc258/2016abpc258.html?resultIndex=5
[1] Mark Gross, “Vigilante Violence and “Forward Panic” in Johannesburg’s Townships.” Theory and Society 45, no. 3 (2016): 242
[2] Curt T. Griffiths, Canadian Criminal Justice: A Primer. (Toronto: Nelson, 2019), 142
[3] Curt T. Griffiths, Canadian Criminal Justice: A Primer. (Toronto: Nelson, 2019), 140
[4] Ibid., 142
[5] R v Vollrath. “R v Vollrath, 2016 ABPC 258.” CanLII, accessed June 21, 2020, https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2016/2016abpc258/2016abpc258.html?resultIndex=5
[6] Curt T. Griffiths, Canadian Criminal Justice: A Primer. (Toronto: Nelson, 2019), 142
[7] Ibid.
[8] Curt T. Griffiths, Canadian Criminal Justice: A Primer. (Toronto: Nelson, 2019), 142
[9] Ibid.