WARNING: Controversial issues such as Death Penalty may be discussed in this forum. Turn back now, if you are not ready to discuss.

Do two wrongs make a right?

For the sake of the argument and logical users, definitions of right and wrong are as follows:

Right and Wrong are societal terms that define a tolerance spectrum regarding actions done by every human and are judged by those humans. Humans have the ability to change that tolerance spectrum to suit their own needs when they need it the most. I am asking why this is.

With all that being said I will further discuss this debate, giving examples and details of course to back my side of the discussion.

1. Do two wrongs really not make a right?
During my whole life, my parents raised me to believe that doing two wrongs will not make a right. what exactly does this mean to society? Does this mean that if someone wrongs you, you should not wrong them back?

Kind of like a reverse Golden Rule in essense?
NOTE: For those of you who do not know, Golden Rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
So, a reverse Golden Rule would mean something like, "Do unto other's as they have done unto you" or something to that effect.

So back to my point in question. If someone wrongs you, should you wrong them? Does this make a combined "wrong" or a justified "right" From society and religion's standpoint this should not be the case, yet it is practiced all the time nonetheless.

Police and other law enforcers will see you speeding. Speeding is "wrong," yet if you continue to go at high speeds, Police will indeed chase you at possibly faster speeds. This is in fact "wrong" as society as a whole has deemed speeding as "wrong" and punishes the wrongdoers accordingly. So if two wrongs don't make a right, why does this give police the ability to do this when society teaches otherwise.
Of course there is the argument of the death penalty as well. Is killing another due to the crimes they committed, justifiable under this universal "Golden rule?"

If it is justifiable, why doesn't the victom's family kill the criminal rather than a random third party person? Is this true justice, to have the killer killed by another instead of the people they directly affected by the killing. How about the person who is doing the killing? Besides societies contradictory laws and regulations, do they truly have a personal right to end a person's life that they have probably never even heard of?

Please discuss both this light example, and heavy example respectively stating arguments, such as morality, religion, emotional mentality, etc.

Questions to consider in summary:
1. Do two wrongs make a right? Why or why not?
2. If no, why do we allow government exceptions to this rule? Are they truly above what is right/wrong?
3. If yes, why do we punish Vigilante's and others that do themselves justice by paying back the orignal
wrongdoers?

1. This first question really depends on each person and how they view it. Personally, I believe that the death penalty is justified. It may not necessarily make everything "right" again, but it certainly makes me feel better.

2. The police are exceptions to the speeding rule because of the simple fact that they have to enforce the laws. If someone is speeding, they need to catch up to that person so they can stop them and hopefully keep them from doing others harm.

3. -Doesn't have time for the third one right now 'cause of work, so will get to it later-

No, two wrongs do not make a right and in defense of the death penalty; the government has to show people that crime does not pay. If they gave everyone a slap on the wrist to every crime that is committed then people are not going to see any downside to it. Life in prison for raping and murdering small children doesn't seem like a punishment versus death. Most people would prefer life in prison to death, because they do not want to die.

Vigilantes get punished because their form of justice is blind. When a person gets arrested they go through systems to see that they get judge fairly. If a group or individual goes and punishes a person before the courts get to then how fair is that? The law is formed so that everyone gets treated equally by the courts, it is not some random person's job to go out and take that into their own hands.

The speeding thing is irrelevant. Speed limits are in place to keep the public safe--law enforcement are trained to drive at high speeds as safely as possible. It's wrong for the speeder because they are being unsafe--it's not wrong for law enforcement because they're trying to stop the unsafe behavior in the safest and most practical way possible.

You also might notice that it may be considered "illegal" for you to throw down spike strips on busy roads by yourself. This is not the case for law enforcement.

This is not to say that they are necessarily "above" the law either--it's just that there are very good reasons that officials are not subject to the laws in question.

Other emergency vehicles (such as fire trucks and ambulances) are legally allowed to go up to 10 over the posted speed limit (which is why many police officers don't or can't issue tickets if you're going less than 10mph over the limit).

Quite the conundrum. I have actually been pondering this for the past few days. I think it a rather convenient coincidence that I stumbled upon this thread.

1. I too was always taught that two wrongs do not make a right. However, I have always been one to question the ways of authority, and always wondered exactly who's job it is to standardize morals. I have also always considered people to be right in their own accord, so I can't say if that right could be considered wrong, unless they feel any sort of remorse, or strain on their morale.
Ultimately I suppose I believe that two wrongs do not correct anything, but just further escalate problems, such as in a scenario where someone gets hit in some way, if they retaliate by means of violence, they are more likely to create a situation in which fault will also fall to them.

I do however see how it could be debated. If someone were to murder someone, for any reason, we, within this society, would see this as "immoral," and deserving of a consequence equal too or greater than what crime has been committed. Yet again, because I believe people are right to their own accord, I can see how they are justifiable in their actions. I find it unfortunate that many people do not stop to question their reasoning for committing the act.

2. I believe the reason that people allow the continuation of governmental regulation in these areas, is because they have been in place so long, people are afraid to waiver from the traditional. It is like this with all issues at some point or another; the prospect that this particular problem could be the one that leads the nation to ruin, is always in the back of their minds, or perhaps it is that we've become so accustomed to our thought-lacking routines, that we just don't feel like bothering with having opinions unless we hear them from television or internet?

Originally Posted by Aggy the Awesome

1. This first question really depends on each person and how they view it. Personally, I believe that the death penalty is justified. It may not necessarily make everything "right" again, but it certainly makes me feel better.

Understood that it is purely matter of opinion, that is why I ask the 'why' questions. Opinions themselves hold no ground, they have to have the reason why you support said opinion.
Why do you feel the death penalty is justified? Which type of death is the most justified? How do you choose the proper death for the proper crime? What justifies the actual executioner from killing, usually someone who wasn't involved with the criminal at all. Also, does this intrude on religious beliefs? What if the accused is mentally deranged, but a faithful follower of Christian God. They kill because they believe they were commanded to and are convicted with death penalty (hypothetical of course), should they too be executed? Where does the line get drawn?

Originally Posted by Aggy the Awesome

2. The police are exceptions to the speeding rule because of the simple fact that they have to enforce the laws. If someone is speeding, they need to catch up to that person so they can stop them and hopefully keep them from doing others harm.

Yes, we pay police, as a society to enforce the laws. However, many abuse this, and speed 20-30mph over the speed limit when they are not needed anywhere or chasing anyone. Yet, they cannot be pulled over for this action. Is it right? or wrong? If someone is speeding, and the police decide to speed to chase the speeder, isn't this actually wrong? claiming it is not is saying that police, are indeed above the law as there are other alternatives to catching/stopping a speeding vehicle. More than one speeding vehicle going down busy roads and populated towns has a greater possibility to do more damage than one car that is not stressed out at being pursued. If the police do not chase the person, but maybe instead, get police who can cut the person off ahead of where they are, wouldn't this be more effective and less dangerous? Also, sometimes wouldn't it be better to just let someone go if it is going to cause harm in the end from being pursued. They can simply get the license number and track the vehicle later, yes?

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

No, two wrongs do not make a right and in defense of the death penalty; the government has to show people that crime does not pay. If they gave everyone a slap on the wrist to every crime that is committed then people are not going to see any downside to it. Life in prison for raping and murdering small children doesn't seem like a punishment versus death. Most people would prefer life in prison to death, because they do not want to die.

Okay, crime does not pay. But wrongly accused people put to death or in jail does? Justice can make mistakes, especially with a lot of negative media. This isn't necessarily the death penalty, but what about the women in the 1980s to 1990s who got in trouble under drug conspiracy laws, when they had no involvement at all? I can provide sources if you wish. I'm not sure about the dates I listed though, so forgive me if I'm wrong with the date. anyways, long story short. Actual people involved got out of court system with a handslap, women that weren't involved, got full lifetime jail sentences and similar punishments to that. Is that justice? How do you give a person all those years back? Especially the mothers with little kids who don't see those kids again until they are adults?
Also, being caged for life would seem a much more fitting punishment than actually dying. The suffering you can undertake while in prison can be so much more horrible than a simple way out of life such as Death Penalty.

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

Vigilantes get punished because their form of justice is blind. When a person gets arrested they go through systems to see that they get judge fairly. If a group or individual goes and punishes a person before the courts get to then how fair is that? The law is formed so that everyone gets treated equally by the courts, it is not some random person's job to go out and take that into their own hands.

Why is their form of justice blind compared to the justice system? When criminals can get away on a technicality, even though it was proven they did said crime, just because the "legal system" did not do things correctly? How is this justice? I can tell you, that if I have a daughter, and she is taken into some kind of sex trafficking organization, I absolutely will not wait for the law enforcement to get off their asses to find my daughter. I will find her myself, and kill those involved in abducting her in the most tortuous ways. Would you not do the same? If your daughter was shared among many of these sickos? People that, even after being killed/arrested, have damaged this innocent child's mind. How do you justify someone's child never being the same again. What justice do you give to theese parents? What justice do you give to the child? How do you define justice?

Originally Posted by Keyori

The speeding thing is irrelevant. Speed limits are in place to keep the public safe--law enforcement are trained to drive at high speeds as safely as possible. It's wrong for the speeder because they are being unsafe--it's not wrong for law enforcement because they're trying to stop the unsafe behavior in the safest and most practical way possible.

You also might notice that it may be considered "illegal" for you to throw down spike strips on busy roads by yourself. This is not the case for law enforcement.

This is not to say that they are necessarily "above" the law either--it's just that there are very good reasons that officials are not subject to the laws in question.

Other emergency vehicles (such as fire trucks and ambulances) are legally allowed to go up to 10 over the posted speed limit (which is why many police officers don't or can't issue tickets if you're going less than 10mph over the limit).

I do understand your argument, but please also look at mine above and tell me what you can say about that as well. I don't think it is necessary to retype what I've already put ^^

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Okay, crime does not pay. But wrongly accused people put to death or in jail does? Justice can make mistakes, especially with a lot of negative media.

The justice system DOES make mistakes, no one said it was perfect. There is a group that helps those who feel that they where wrongly accused to help clear their names. Of course, this isn't comforting to those who had loved ones put to death for "something they didn't do". The benefits outweigh the cons in this act.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Why is their form of justice blind compared to the justice system? When criminals can get away on a technicality, even though it was proven they did said crime, just because the "legal system" did not do things correctly? How is this justice?

Again, Justice isn't always perfect. But if you turn the tables, and a person who supposedly committed a crime was set free. And they where truly innocent, yet some viewed that a killer/rapist/thief was set free and later a vigilante killed this person. What sort of justice is this?

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

The justice system DOES make mistakes, no one said it was perfect. There is a group that helps those who feel that they where wrongly accused to help clear their names. Of course, this isn't comforting to those who had loved ones put to death for "something they didn't do". The benefits outweigh the cons in this act.

There are indeed groups that do this. However, this still does not give back the time they lost while being incarcerated. Where is the justification in this? they may get their lives back, but do we just forget the mistake and move on? Knowing a little bit about human psychology, it would seem the person would then be in complete distrust of the government and quite resentful. How do we compensate the person accused in a way that they will no longer feel this way. It is quite hard to replace time lost, actually, I think it's quite impossible.

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

Again, Justice isn't always perfect. But if you turn the tables, and a person who supposedly committed a crime was set free. And they where truly innocent, yet some viewed that a killer/rapist/thief was set free and later a vigilante killed this person. What sort of justice is this?

Ah, the argument of he said she said. Which the government was created for in the first place. Good argument ^^. At this point of the argument, I could say you're slightly off topic though. Either that, or I was not clear about vigilante. By vigilante, I mean, doing something before the law does. I don't necessarily mean a person who gets off a case after being found innocent, being later murdered by vengeful people. Though this can also be considered a vigilante as well. How do you know if accused is truly innocent? Like before, justice is flawed. What makes courts able to make mistakes, yet when vigilante's kill (mistakenly or correctly) they get punished. Why do they get punished if they are indeed correct? Is it to make an example to frown upon vigilantes and their actions? Or is it simply because the courts have more power than the people that use them in the first place. If this is the case, why can courts do things that simple people cannot if it reaches the same result/conclusion? What exactly is the difference here? You can argue that a jury is non biased third party, but then I can argue that the victim was personally involved and probably has more evidence than anyone else, just can't legally prove it. If we go too much into this particular point, we may involve ourselves in a discussion about anarchism versus democracy. Which wouldn't be a bad discussion itself ^^.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

What makes courts able to make mistakes, yet when vigilante's kill (mistakenly or correctly) they get punished. Why do they get punished if they are indeed correct?

That is because we have laws and courts for a reason. If every person decided to take the law into their own hands then there would be chaos.

Take this for an example:

A teenager regularly destroys a man's yard, breaking things and vandalizing the house with spray paint. Taking it one step forward, even killing this man's dog. When the police where called the man never had the evidence to prove that this boy actually did the act. So the next time the boy was seen on his property doing these acts the man shot him. Even if he just lamed the boy, does anything give him the right to shoot this boy?

I believe last year, something like this happened. A man got tired of a boy walking in his yard, said that he was destroying his property. The man shot and killed this boy, he was fifteen.

If the government started letting these vigilantes go with just a slap on the wrist because they are "helping" then where does it stop?

Originally Posted by Lucid Hallucinogen

1. I too was always taught that two wrongs do not make a right. However, I have always been one to question the ways of authority, and always wondered exactly who's job it is to standardize morals. I have also always considered people to be right in their own accord, so I can't say if that right could be considered wrong, unless they feel any sort of remorse, or strain on their morale.
Ultimately I suppose I believe that two wrongs do not correct anything, but just further escalate problems, such as in a scenario where someone gets hit in some way, if they retaliate by means of violence, they are more likely to create a situation in which fault will also fall to them.

I do however see how it could be debated. If someone were to murder someone, for any reason, we, within this society, would see this as "immoral," and deserving of a consequence equal too or greater than what crime has been committed. Yet again, because I believe people are right to their own accord, I can see how they are justifiable in their actions. I find it unfortunate that many people do not stop to question their reasoning for committing the act.

2. I believe the reason that people allow the continuation of governmental regulation in these areas, is because they have been in place so long, people are afraid to waiver from the traditional. It is like this with all issues at some point or another; the prospect that this particular problem could be the one that leads the nation to ruin, is always in the back of their minds, or perhaps it is that we've become so accustomed to our thought-lacking routines, that we just don't feel like bothering with having opinions unless we hear them from television or internet?

I love the points you make. It is our job, as people and a society as a whole, flawed as we are in our judgements of good and evil, to standarize morals. However, we each have our own individual moral standards we live by as well. When and why exactly do we give the government intruisive abilities to override said morals? Limits and government obviously exist to keep the majority of the people safe. This, unfortunately will never cover everyone as it is flawed in its design at the very core. People judging other people, yes they are people elected by other people, but they are still people nonetheless. People that incorporate their own religious views in their decisions, People who put their personal experiences in their decisions as a subconsicious act since that is how they live. This is why some judges/authority will let some things go less harshly than others. Where do we allow ourselves to draw a line to standardize morals that we, as a society should follow? If seperation of Church and State exist, why do so many laws and regulations revolve around one religion in particular? Is it merely coincidence, or does authority let religion and personal experience get in the way of their supposed to be unbiased decisions?

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

That is because we have laws and courts for a reason. If every person decided to take the law into their own hands then there would be chaos.

Take this for an example:

A teenager regularly destroys a man's yard, breaking things and vandalizing the house with spray paint. Taking it one step forward, even killing this man's dog. When the police where called the man never had the evidence to prove that this boy actually did the act. So the next time the boy was seen on his property doing these acts the man shot him. Even if he just lamed the boy, does anything give him the right to shoot this boy?

I believe last year, something like this happened. A man got tired of a boy walking in his yard, said that he was destroying his property. The man shot and killed this boy, he was fifteen.

If the government started letting these vigilantes go with just a slap on the wrist because they are "helping" then where does it stop?

Is not the right to defend ourselves a clearly legitimate explanation for this. The teenager in question, is intruding on this man's house, his possessions, and even killing his dog. Pursuit of happiness, is listed in the constituition as something every human is entitled to. If the teenager, even after a legal examination, still continues to do these disruptive things, why shouldn't the man take the matter in his own hands. the law refuses to do something, the man takes action. I see no wrong with this. In fact, I actually support it. Did his actions go too far? maybe. But if the law fails to protect us, is it not our right to protect ourselves?

As there have been cases where burglars cut their hands on windows glass, or break their ankle falling from a window, and they sue the family who owns the house that the burgalar trespassed in the first place for tons of money and wins. Burglar comes out on top, family ends up getting broken window, some objects stolen, on top of being cheated out of tons of money. Where exactly is the benefit of this legal system. It's literally a game of which lawyer can lie twist the words the best anc convince people. Clearly whoever is more charismatic will win in most cases unless there is extreme evidence and even then, with stone cold evidence it can still be put to question based on how crafty said lawyer is.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Is not the right to defend ourselves a clearly legitimate explanation for this.

As there have been cases where burglars cut their hands on windows glass, or break their ankle falling from a window, and they sue the family who owns the house that the burgalar trespassed in the first place for tons of money and wins. Burglar comes out on top, family ends up getting broken window, some objects stolen, on top of being cheated out of tons of money.

Actually, the law is if the bugler makes it into the house and then gets hurt, then no they can't sue. However if the bugler is outside the house and get hurts, and the owners have no proof that he was indeed there to rob them, then yes he can. We do have the right to defend ourselves IF our lives or the lives of our loved ones are in danger.

The point of my post was that, the law was created to maintain unity. If everyone started taking the law into their own hands then what sort of unity is that? You are asking if two wrongs make a right? No they do not, and not sort of arguing can prove otherwise. The laws are created for a reason, if people started disregarding one law, then others will soon follow. The government will start to collapse and then everything will be in chaos.

Its like when we raise our children, we teach them how to interact with other children. When a child takes a toy from another, do we not punish that child? What happens if after that child takes the toy, the child who was robbed pushed the other down. Do we not punish that child? If you let that child get away with pushing the one child, then it will be a domino effect where that child sees that he can bully anyone when he gets angry.

You see, everything has it's place. Rules and regulations have meanings, and if we don't follow them all it will lead is to chaos.

I get what you are saying, that you feel that a person has the right to defend one's self. But vigilantes usually don't stop at just one person...if they are let free to do their acts then what is to stop them from escalating and start punishing people who THEY feel are guilty, even though there is no real proof of their acts?

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

Actually, the law is if the bugler makes it into the house and then gets hurt, then no they can't sue. However if the bugler is outside the house and get hurts, and the owners have no proof that he was indeed there to rob them, then yes he can. We do have the right to defend ourselves IF our lives or the lives of our loved ones are in danger.

Here is an example contradicting what you say. Also, why should burglars benefit if they choose to trespass? Do you blame people for taking action, why should people be punished who are not truly at fault. Just a SOL or a lose-lose situation for the homeowner? A mailicious person intruding on their space, hurting themselves, and then getting all the money they can leech out of the actual homeowner, pretty much permanently destroying any middle class or poor class family for a long time.

Burglar Suit Success

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

I get what you are saying, that you feel that a person has the right to defend one's self. But vigilantes usually don't stop at just one person...if they are let free to do their acts then what is to stop them from escalating and start punishing people who THEY feel are guilty, even though there is no real proof of their acts?

Excellent point, who is to know when the vigilantes will start trying to decide what is wrong and right for everyone. When do they become fully fledged "superheroes" or infamous "villains?" So is it possible to bring a happy medium between the court system and the vigilante? After all, this discussion has now literally turned into a cloaked discussion of "When does government control override personal happiness/morals?"

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

The point of my post was that, the law was created to maintain unity. If everyone started taking the law into their own hands then what sort of unity is that? You are asking if two wrongs make a right? No they do not, and not sort of arguing can prove otherwise. The laws are created for a reason, if people started disregarding one law, then others will soon follow. The government will start to collapse and then everything will be in chaos.

Yes, that was what it was designed for, but is that truly what happens? What you describe is either a rebellion against the government or complet anarchy at its finest. Very interesting points you have had, and I am quite enjoying this discussion with you. If I annoy you I am sorry, I truly mean this to be an indepth discussion of intelligence, pros and cons and whatnot. I do really enjoy this conversation with you though. You make excellent points, and wonderful arguments.
With what you are suggesting, let me ask you this...just out of curiousity. I think I already know your answer, but just to make sure.
Do you find anarchy as unacceptable in today's society? Is order and regulation really better? Especially how religion oriented it is towards Christianity? I look forward to your response.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Here is an example contradicting what you say. Also, why should burglars benefit if they choose to trespass? Do you blame people for taking action, why should people be punished who are not truly at fault. Just a SOL or a lose-lose situation for the homeowner? A mailicious person intruding on their space, hurting themselves, and then getting all the money they can leech out of the actual homeowner, pretty much permanently destroying any middle class or poor class family for a long time.

Burglar Suit Success

Your point is void, since those instances happened back in the 80s.

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

Your point is void, since those instances happened back in the 80s.

I'll succumb to that, but what about the rest I posted. Trespassing, is that not intruding as well? and can we not defend ourselves from them if the law chooses not to?

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

I'll succumb to that, but what about the rest I posted. Trespassing, is that not intruding as well? and can we not defend ourselves from them if the law chooses not to?

There are two types of breaking and entering in the CJ world. Those that happen during the day and those that happen during the night. Daytime burglary is not an excuse for Self Defense cases UNLESS the criminal has a weapon and threatens you. If they break in at night time then you have the law on your side to take whatever measures you need to protect your life and family. I am a CJ student. lol

Another question on the part where you voided my argument. Before the 80s, vigilantes still were not accepted. So if you were to argue the burglar case, how would you go about it, seeing as how vigilantes still weren't allowed to exact justice upon their wrongdoers back then either? Do we just overlook the court rulings and ignorantly claim that they should be the only ones that have a right to execute justice on people who are accused of wrongdoing?

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Another question on the part where you voided my argument. Before the 80s, vigilantes still were not accepted. So if you were to argue the burglar case, how would you go about it, seeing as how vigilantes still weren't allowed to exact justice upon their wrongdoers back then either? Do we just overlook the court rulings and ignorantly claim that they should be the only ones that have a right to execute justice on people who are accused of wrongdoing?

Back then doesn't matter because it was the past...there is no arguing about things that are over and done with.

I have a question for you. What I came to understand, Tutela, is that you have a fascination with vigilantes like Batman for example. He is not a real superhero but actually a vigilante. There is nothing wrong with your fascination, however you have to ask yourself this.

When does a person go to far? Take, for example, a person suffering from a mental defect. He or she views that certain people are evil and committing crimes, they take things into their own hands and commit murder. Even if it is proved that one of those people where actually committing a crime and this vigilante did do so called justice by getting rid of them before they hurt any more people. Do you think that the defense would have a good argument? Using the hero defense? No, instead they would be found guilty by reason of insanity.

If society allowed vigilantes to go free we as a nation would have more crime then justice.

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

Back then doesn't matter because it was the past...there is no arguing about things that are over and done with.

You declaring that, is like saying that humans cannot learn from their mistakes, or even use history's age old lessons to improve their future. This is just a copout and does nothing to explain the reasons why. Reasons are what matters, not the actual actions themselves. If you can understand and learn the reasons, you can change things to be beneficial that would normally be harmful and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

I have a question for you. What I came to understand, Tutela, is that you have a fascination with vigilantes like Batman for example. He is not a real superhero but actually a vigilante. There is nothing wrong with your fascination, however you have to ask yourself this.

When does a person go to far? Take, for example, a person suffering from a mental defect. He or she views that certain people are evil and committing crimes, they take things into their own hands and commit murder. Even if it is proved that one of those people where actually committing a crime and this vigilante did do so called justice by getting rid of them before they hurt any more people. Do you think that the defense would have a good argument? Using the hero defense? No, instead they would be found guilty by reason of insanity.

If society allowed vigilantes to go free we as a nation would have more crime then justice.

Spiderman, is actually my hero of choice ;)
Batman is my fiancee's. Good analogy though.
Yes, superheroes are for the most part exacting justice on those who are able to escape it by technicalities or if they are "too smart/powerful" to be caught.
A poorman's justice if you will. Let's face it, most multi billion dollar corporations, have lawyers beyond lawyers and tons of money. Unless a poor person is extremely lucky with a great lawyer, they hardly have a chance at winning any kind of case. Rich people commit crimes, and lots of times...due to social status, and wealth, they can get away with almost anything including murder. I would much rather rely on vigilantes than a flawed court system with the nemesis of money on the table.
A vigilante cares not about money, only about the principle, whereas with politics money can lots of times change a decision. I believe that a vigilante should act to defend themselves or what possessions hold dear, but should not go beyond that. If they choose to, then they are now outside of that category and just a plain murderer themselves and should either answer to the court system or another vigilante that realizes the threat and takes care of it.

Added to this, the police and other authority do act corrupt themselves and will break rules just because they have a 90% chance of getting away with it. An abuse of power that is simply not necessary.

My question though is, when should the government cease from interfering in an individual's life? Does the government completely own us and what we do? Or is there still some thinking for ourselves in this already chaotic, controlled world?

Justice is blind. That has been the basis of the system forever. However, justice being blind means that, no matter how much money that you have, no matter what color you are, whether you are a man or a woman, or what have you.
Vigilante justice truly does not have a place in modern society. While the idea of an amateur law enforcement team has its advantages, they would, unfortunately, need to follow the laws that the government chooses to set in play. Because, justice without a basis isn't truly justice at all.
For example. What if a woman wanted a man, but he didn't want her? As a result, the woman claimed the man raped her. Then, a bunch of her male friends and relatives went out and lynched this guy. They didn't have any proof that she was raped, except her word.
Basically, what I am saying is that the justice system can protect us from petty, vindictive acts of revenge.
Also, we're treading a fine line between "laws" and social mores. Many times, they are the same, such as "Murder is wrong." However, a more is more of a personal morality. And, I do not believe that people's personal morality should be any basis for governing a large body of people. It is never a good idea to allow personal beliefs to define justice for us all.
Also, you cannot use the examples of stupid lawsuits as a basis for taking justice into your own hands. We live in a rather litigation-happy society these days. Take the infamous McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit. Just because stupid lawsuits go through, does not mean that the criminal justice system is that flawed, merely the civil justice system. Civil suits and trials have gone way off-kilter.
However, the criminal justice system, while having some flaws, has a pretty good standing. No system is ever perfect, but with the new technologies, such as the AFIS fingerprinting database and the advent of DNA evidence, the criminal justice system is evolving every day.

Originally Posted by BellaDonnaX

Justice is blind. That has been the basis of the system forever. However, justice being blind means that, no matter how much money that you have, no matter what color you are, whether you are a man or a woman, or what have you.

If Justice is indeed blind, why then does it matter who executes this justice? Whether it is the courts, a police officer, or a vigilante. Why do we discriminate against the vigilante?

Originally Posted by BellaDonnaX

Vigilante justice truly does not have a place in modern society. While the idea of an amateur law enforcement team has its advantages, they would, unfortunately, need to follow the laws that the government chooses to set in play. Because, justice without a basis isn't truly justice at all.

However, the criminal justice system, while having some flaws, has a pretty good standing. No system is ever perfect, but with the new technologies, such as the AFIS fingerprinting database and the advent of DNA evidence, the criminal justice system is evolving every day.

Okay, so vigilante's would need to follow the laws, I understand that and agree with it. Why then, are police, judges, etc above said laws. Are they not just elected vigilante's in a sense?
Also, why do we have it in our system, that if a police officer gains evidence outside of lawful practices, the criminal is let off on a technicality. Is this fair to the victim and their family/friends? Why should someone, who did a wrong deed, get away with doing it simply because another human being made a mistake?

You know, I read something on MSN that reminded me of you...it was talking about a vigilante who helps parents find their children. You know after another parent takes them away to a country that doesn't view their rights.

Most common is Arab men taking their children back home to their countries. Mainly because women don't have rights like men do. Just recently a woman took her children back to Japan after divorcing her husband. His rights aren't recognized in Japan because of the mother.

Now, this point..if I was married to a foreigner and then got a divorce...and if he took my children to his home country...God only knows who I would kill to get them back.

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

You know, I read something on MSN that reminded me of you...it was talking about a vigilante who helps parents find their children. You know after another parent takes them away to a country that doesn't view their rights.

Most common is Arab men taking their children back home to their countries. Mainly because women don't have rights like men do. Just recently a woman took her children back to Japan after divorcing her husband. His rights aren't recognized in Japan because of the mother.

Now, this point..if I was married to a foreigner and then got a divorce...and if he took my children to his home country...God only knows who I would kill to get them back.

Heh, well at least you share the same passion I do with children being taken away ^^;

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

For the sake of the argument and logical users, definitions of right and wrong are as follows:
"Right" will be assumed to mean following the laws that are governed by the leader that we as humans elect to represent us.
"Wrong" will be assumed to mean breaking or disregarding the laws that are in place.

Your entire thread and basis of "right" and "wrong" is based on a false premise, then. What is the point of discussing right and wrong if we cannot discuss what right and wrong are?

Originally Posted by Kris

Your entire thread and basis of "right" and "wrong" is based on a false premise, then. What is the point of discussing right and wrong if we cannot discuss what right and wrong are?

Well, you are more than welcome to discuss what right and wrong are. It is an interesting discussion in and of itself. But that is not really the point of the discussion. I am not debating what is good and what is evil as one viewing it objectively can look it at any action either way. In order to discuss what evil and good are objectively, one would have to take more than the human race into account in their analysis and argument. Once we look beyond the human race, murder of another human being could be looked at as a perfectly viable good thing as that human has caused much negativity in their lifetime. Also, would you be looking at good and evil based off religious theories?

No, my discussion is about what society has already deemed as right and wrong. According to the Western Society, Killing is wrong, driving under the influence is wrong, burglary is wrong, lying is wrong, etc, etc. My question is, is that through my lifetime many people have told me to forgive and forget, that two wrongs don't make a right, etc. Is this truly the case? If so, then give reasons explaining why. If not, give reasons explaining why not.

1. Do two wrongs really not make a right?
During my whole life, my parents raised me to believe that doing two wrongs will not make a right. what exactly does this mean to society? Does this mean that if someone wrongs you, you should not wrong them back?

-Two wrongs do not make a right because the intial act was still wrong granted if somebody cut off my hand it would be unfair that I'm now handless while they still have both of their's. So while it wouldn't necessarily be the right thing to do it'd be fairer and I doubt anybody would go cutting off people's hands if they knew the same would come back onto them.

I've wandered about that sometimes myself. Just because somebody happens to be a police officer and somebody is speeding, to use your example, what gives them the right to do the same? It'll get the person, hopefully, who originally committed the crime and hopefully discourage others from doing the same. The speeder knows an officer will come after them and they are more likely to pull over so in a way it makes it okay for the Officer to do this because its for the greater good. If there was no officer there and some random person decided to go after that car would it not raise the chances for disaster?

Vigilantes are an iffy subject. Going back to the Speeder if a Vigilante decided that person shouldn't speed and went after them would they be just as guilty? It'd also raise the chances for disaster because you now have two speeders and the other person is less likely to stop because they don't see the Vigilante as any authority. In another example if some man or woman decided to murder somebody you cared about and you know they did it without a doubt, have evidence etc, and they get off scott free due to some technicality your loved one is still dead and no justice has been done. I don't see it as being wrong to bring the wrong-doer justice. It does not make it right but it wasn't right that they murdered somebody and nothing was done. The victim is now dead and they can never come back, it is unfair that the person who did that gets to keep their's.

When it comes to the Death Penalty I'm iffy on that and thats due to no mercy on the wrong-doer. If you are dead how can you truely pay for your crimes? Your just dead while the victim and/or their family have to live with it for the rest of their lives. Then again if somebody is just killed off they are no longer any threat. Also whomever does the killing are they not committing murder themselves? It may be for the right reasons but its still murder and that doesn't make them any better than a Vigilante.