# Justifiable Lynchings?



## Susie (Nov 18, 2014)

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/174993/governor-tries-to-justify-lynchings

Could this happen in your neighborhood?
How are thieves punished in your country: Community service, counseling, removal of left hand?
What is your answer to thieving, especially now around the Xmas holidays?
Are public "lynchings" as described in the "Buenos Aires Herald" justified?


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 18, 2014)

> Are public "lynchings" as described in the "Buenos Aires Herald" justified?


Never justified however they are described.


----------



## Susie (Nov 19, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Never justified however they are described.


So. how would you deal with an intruder who intends to rob you blind: Hit him over the head with a baseball bat, a metal walking stick, or in the U.S. shoot him?
If the intruder has been injured, can he legally sue the owner (Australia); can he successfully flog (sell the experience) the attack to an idea-hungry movie/TV industry?
Who's the victim? The injured thief or the home-owner?


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 19, 2014)

Huh? I thought a lynching was a hanging without judicial process.

If I had to deal with an intruder intent on robbing me blind, I'd say "Go for it, mate", and throw my wallet at him.
My aim is so bad he would probably not suffer an injury.

Actually, I would more likely say "Go for it and I hope it chokes you , you miserable bastard".


----------



## Laurie (Nov 19, 2014)

Always justified and proper until, of course, the first innocent person gets strung up.

Not so long since the home of an eminent woman doctor was trashed in the UK because the mob didn;t know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician.


----------



## Susie (Nov 19, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Huh? I thought a lynching was a hanging without judicial process.
> 
> If I had to deal with an intruder intent on robbing me blind, I'd say "Go for it, mate", and throw my wallet at him.
> My aim is so bad he would probably not suffer an injury.
> ...


I like your sense of humor, DW! But what will the thief do, especially if after all that, he  finds nothing worthwhile to steal?
Another example:
You're out Xmas shopping, bought yourself an $80.- slinky dress for the party, some bling to go with it, a pair of beautiful, black Merrill sandals.Exhausted you arrive home and guess what, your beautiful, strappy sandals have disappeared!
What do you do? Check the car, the store, the car park-in case they dropped out of the bag!
Finally it dawns on you: You've just become the victim of a light fingered thief!
Wouldn't you get angry? I sure would!
What should the punishment for this sly, light :hiteachother:fingered thief be, if ever caught: A rap over the knuckles; a good talking to; a PURPLE-GREEN spot on her/his forehead? Or?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Nov 19, 2014)

Hmmm, glad I never got caught in my youthful shoplifting days...


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 19, 2014)

Susie said:


> I like your sense of humor, DW! But what will the thief do, especially if after all that, he  finds nothing worthwhile to steal?
> Another example:
> You're out Xmas shopping, bought yourself an $80.- slinky dress for the party, some bling to go with it, a pair of beautiful, black Merrill sandals.Exhausted you arrive home and guess what, your beautiful, strappy sandals have disappeared!
> What do you do? Check the car, the store, the car park-in case they dropped out of the bag!
> ...



Actually, Susie, I wasn't joking. There is nothing material that can be taken from me that is worth someone's life to defend; not mine and not the thief's either. 

Also anger results in bad justice. That's why we have courts of law, not vigilantes bent on lynching people. Between a hasty hanging and a good talking to, I choose the latter every time.

The rule of law protects all of us.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Nov 19, 2014)

Not sure that all believe in the justice system,  especially when it comes to racially charged cases...


----------



## rkunsaw (Nov 19, 2014)

The fewer thieves in the world the better the world is. Punishment for any crime should always be severe enough so that it discourages repeats.


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 19, 2014)

The problem with giving up your goods to a robber is that, especially nowadays, they are no longer satisfied with just material possessions - they want to humiliate and/or hurt you. Giving up your wallet is no guarantee that the robber will turn and leave - the days of the gentleman thief are long gone.

Personally I would judge my actions on a case-by-case basis. If I just have a few dollars or something I'm not really attached to, I would probably offer it up freely as the first step. If it were something of great value, on the other hand - a family member, a royalty check for my books, a pepperoni pizza - then I would take more direct action.

That action could include becoming judge, jury, executioner or all three. 

I don't expect the police to protect me - they won't be there until the bad guy is long gone and I'm a little puddle on the ground. I don't expect the judicial system to protect me - they are corrupt and ineffective to a fare-thee-well. My neighbors? They're all hiding in their basements watching television, so no help there.

No, I'm a firm advocate of frontier justice, of the sort that fits the crime.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 19, 2014)

So I guess it's back to vigilante justice?  To hell with the courts?   I don't think anyone is against defending yourself from imminent danger or death by whatever means you have available.. I think we quickly get into grey areas about what constitutes imminent danger or death though as the odious Stand you Ground laws have demonstrated over and over in some high profile cases.    So what is a lynching?  I would say that the criminal is subdued and taken out and publically killed.   How is that OK?   If the criminal is subdued and able to be taken somewhere, why not call the authorities to take over?  OR have we become so blood thirsty that nothing satisfies us any more but inflicting torture and pain and death on another human because it gives us a perverse sort of pleasure and we feel it's "justified"  because this person did something to us.  I think we are seeing a trend where only killing makes us happy.  It makes us even happier if we feel the person "deserved" it.  We are becoming as morally bankrupt as the criminals we are up against.


----------



## Susie (Nov 19, 2014)

rkunsaw said:


> The fewer thieves in the world the better the world is. Punishment for any crime should always be severe enough so that it discourages repeats.


Totally agree with your response to a world-wide problem!
However, what would crime writers, the TV/movie industry do without thieves and robbers.
The following is an imaginary story e.g. "a total and complete LIE !!!!
What if crime writers, movie and TV representatives, who enjoy filling our screen with gruesome events, could attend the annual "thieves and robbers" convention where they could be one of the judges for the most successful videos, showing the process and result of a thieving expedition, maybe involving valuable jewellery, silver items, electronic gadgets, and for sale to the TV/movie industry? (the chosen videos)
Don't you think the originators (the thieves) should at least be entitled to a hefty percentage of the sale ?


----------



## Susie (Nov 19, 2014)

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-scumbag|homepage|homepage&itmt=1416507434588

The latest trend in Australia: Pensioner Bashing/Robbing!
If they ever catch the coward (see article for details), what possibly could be a fitting punishment?
"An Eye for an Eye"?


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 19, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> So I guess it's back to vigilante justice?  To hell with the courts?   I don't think anyone is against defending yourself from imminent danger or death by whatever means you have available.. I think we quickly get into grey areas about what constitutes imminent danger or death though as the odious Stand you Ground laws have demonstrated over and over in some high profile cases.    So what is a lynching?  I would say that the criminal is subdued and taken out and publically killed.   How is that OK?   If the criminal is subdued and able to be taken somewhere, why not call the authorities to take over?  OR have we become so blood thirsty that nothing satisfies us any more but inflicting torture and pain and death on another human because it gives us a perverse sort of pleasure and we feel it's "justified"  because this person did something to us.  I think we are seeing a trend where only killing makes us happy.  It makes us even happier if we feel the person "deserved" it.  We are becoming as morally bankrupt as the criminals we are up against.



As an intelligent person I'm assuming that you know the roots of the word "vigilante" - that it is derived from the Latin for "observant" or "awake", and that the original vigilantes were basically firemen / policemen before firemen / policemen existed.

This is how I view vigilantism - no courts were needed when an unlawful action was directly observed. The problem was taken in hand and summarily solved. No muss, no fuss, no bought judges, no PC, no sleeping jurors.

Justice.

What constitutes imminent death or danger would I believe be quite readily apparent to anyone who has ever faced a threat in the real world. It is only those whose social position and money have insulated them for their entire lives who support the crippled apparatus that we call a "justice system".

Like any other social system, our justice is fueled by money. Those who have it walk, those who do not go to prison. In neither case is justice served.

Lynchings? Well, if a bad guy lynches someone then he should himself be lynched. If he murdered someone (not _killed_ - murdered) then he should be killed. If he stole? Perhaps the mid-eastern custom of cutting off fingers / hands. It is an effective practice with a nearly zero rate of recidivism. 

Rape? Cut off other parts.

I take no pleasure in inflicting pain on others, but I DO view it as occasionally necessary for my survival, which of course is only following the biological imperative.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 19, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> As an intelligent person I'm assuming that you know the roots of the word "vigilante" - that it is derived from the Latin for "observant" or "awake", and that the original vigilantes were basically firemen / policemen before firemen / policemen existed.
> 
> This is how I view vigilantism - no courts were needed when an unlawful action was directly observed. The problem was taken in hand and summarily solved. No muss, no fuss, no bought judges, no PC, no sleeping jurors.
> 
> ...



So I guess you wouldn't mind a little Sharia law..  maybe a public stoning.. or beheading..   great fun..  lol!!


----------



## Sid (Nov 19, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Actually, Susie, I wasn't joking. There is nothing material that can be taken from me that is worth someone's life to defend; not mine and not the thief's either.
> 
> 
> Also anger results in bad justice. That's why we have courts of law, not vigilantes bent on lynching people. Between a hasty hanging and a good talking to, I choose the latter every time.
> ...




the rule of law does not protect me when it has so many loopholes for the criminal to escape.


----------



## Sid (Nov 19, 2014)

As I understand the article the criminals were caught in the act and dealt with at the time. It was not a mob that hunted them down. 
    That may not be altogether bad.


----------



## Susie (Nov 19, 2014)

Susie said:


> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-scumbag|homepage|homepage&itmt=1416507434588
> 
> The latest trend in Australia: Pensioner Bashing/Robbing!
> If they ever catch the coward (see article for details), what possibly could be a fitting punishment?
> "An Eye for an Eye"?



Another shocking example of an 87-year-old being robbed by 3 thugs.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/25568503/alleged-teen-robbers-took-just-15/


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 19, 2014)

You do understand that the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" statement is a call for moderation in punishment.

The punishment must not be worse than the offence that provokes it.

From the OP link



> In October, there were several incidents of public lynching committed against alleged thieves that were published in local provincial newspapers



Think about this incident, also in Argentina, which is described as a lynching (I always thought that lynching involved a hanging but apparently beating someone to death also qualifies)



> A youth tried to steal a mobile phone and was attacked by a mob. A policeman saw the scene and dialed 911. “The man was bleeding. His eyes were rolled back. He was in a bad condition,” the officer said. But when the police patrol arrived and tried to fetch the criminal, officers were attacked by the residents. The police used rubber bullets to disperse them.



Do these incidents pass the 'eye for an eye' test or is it simply mob rule, even when the police turn up.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Nov 20, 2014)

The veneer of any civilized society is only a shallow coating that we have seen come off from all nations, including our own...


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 20, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> You do understand that the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" statement is a call for moderation in punishment.
> 
> The punishment must not be worse than the offence that provokes it.
> 
> ...



Exactly..   Since when is robbery punishable by death?    Perhaps beheadings should become the street law of the West too?   Why condem ISIS when some here are no better.


----------



## rkunsaw (Nov 20, 2014)

I don't believe in the eye for an eye test as you call it. To be effective the punishment for any crime should (when possible) be much worse than the crime. Anything less is not enough of a deterrent, Punishment should also be swift. Our system allows such long delays it makes a mockery of justice. You liberals put much effort in defending the criminals rights and don't give a thought to the rights of the victim.


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 20, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> So I guess you wouldn't mind a little Sharia law..  maybe a public stoning.. or beheading..   great fun..  lol!!



Again, you choose emotionally-laden examples. 

A good old-fashioned whipping might put them on the right path. Banishment to the South Bronx for a year. Something creative ...


----------



## Susie (Nov 20, 2014)

http://www.asecurelife.com/burglary-statistics/ 
Some fascinating facts and insights about burglary in the U.S.A., also interesting details about felonies and misdemeanors.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 20, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Again, you choose emotionally-laden examples.
> 
> A good old-fashioned whipping might put them on the right path. Banishment to the South Bronx for a year. Something creative ...



Again... you cannot put this in the hands of the populace.  Who is going to decide the punishment?  Will there be someone in charge to see that the proper punishment be dealt.. or will MOB rule take over and people will be slaughtered for breaking and entering?   We have seen mob mentality at work..  Humans can be vicious ESPECIALLY if they feel they are morally (or ethnically) superior.   It's not like we don't have plenty of that going around.


----------



## Twixie (Nov 20, 2014)

Yes.. a mob of humans can become a pack of wolves...driven by bloodlust..

All sense and reason goes out of the window..


----------



## Jackie22 (Nov 20, 2014)

Exactly, Twixie and QS, think KKK.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 20, 2014)

Twixie said:


> Yes..mob of humans can become a pack of wolves...driven by bloodlust..
> 
> All sense and reason goes out of the window..



It definitely  would be bloodlust..  Also, punishment is certain to not be equal.  Certain ethnic groups would be dealt with much more severely than others... depending on which group was doling out the "justice".    Our system is far from perfect, but certainly better than street vigilantism.    Who here would want to be involved in a minor traffic incident and pulled from your car to be "punished"...?    Would the neighborhood you were in change your answer??   lol!!


----------



## Twixie (Nov 20, 2014)

Do they still exist???


----------



## Jackie22 (Nov 20, 2014)

The KKK is alive and well....http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/31/us/new-york-kkk-recruitment/


----------



## Twixie (Nov 20, 2014)

Jackie22 said:


> The KKK is alive and well....http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/31/us/new-york-kkk-recruitment/



My God...We would get sent to prison over here...


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 20, 2014)

Twixie said:


> Do they still exist???




Oh  my Goodness YES....  For many years they were in the shadows, but with the election of our first Black President they have become emboldened and in fact a few have even run for public office.  Racism here is alive and well.  Fortunately the civil rights laws have prevented much of the old Jim Crow actions, but the  mentality remains and is more openly voiced.


----------



## Twixie (Nov 20, 2014)

We did have a milder version called the BNP..British National Party..whose main object was to vilify immigrants..regardless of their colour..They seemed mainly to attack Muslims..but had to be _very_ careful what they said...It is now mainly defunct as it appeared to be run by Neo-Nazi's...

Our latest one..(a much milder version) is called UKIP..United Kingdom Independence Party...who are more concerned with Britain leaving the EU..and putting a stop to economic migrants from the Eastern European countries..


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 20, 2014)

Oh we have the Neo-Nazi's here too... aka Skin Heads...  Not much different than the KKK minus the sheets and the Grand Wizards..


----------



## Twixie (Nov 20, 2014)

Just looked it up..they seem to be the henchmen of these parties..violent psychopaths with the IQ of a park bench...

We also have the EDL..English Defence league..who show up in largely immigrant areas...have a ''peaceful'' protest...and then go home..

I was going to post a link...but it is really racist..


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 20, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Again... you cannot put this in the hands of the populace.  Who is going to decide the punishment?  Will there be someone in charge to see that the proper punishment be dealt.. or will MOB rule take over and people will be slaughtered for breaking and entering?



I see a major difference between mob rule and vigilantism. Mob rule is unorganized, unthinking, unknowing. Vigilantes know out the door what they're about and what they're doing and they have limits. 



> We have seen mob mentality at work..  Humans can be vicious ESPECIALLY  if they feel they are morally (or ethnically) superior.   It's not like  we don't have plenty of that going around.



Yes, I agree ... like Ferguson.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 20, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Yes, I agree ... like Ferguson.




Ok.... NOW I understand your position..   By the way.... your SLIP is showing.


----------



## SifuPhil (Nov 20, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Ok.... NOW I understand your position..   By the way.... your SLIP is showing.



And at this point I think it wise that we agree to disagree.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 20, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> And at this point I think it wise that we agree to disagree.



Yes...


----------



## Susie (Nov 20, 2014)

What do you think could be the most efficient deterrents for theft, burglary, rape, and other crimes?
The threat of:
Lynching
KKK
Jail sentence
Incarceration in a concentration camp type of facility
A combination of psychology lectures and/or daily beatings
Or?


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 20, 2014)

How about ensure that the children are raised well and have decent education even if their parents are unable to afford one for them.


----------



## Susie (Nov 20, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> How about ensure that the children are raised well and have decent education even if their parents are unable to afford one for them.


Can't help but agree with you, D.W.
Being out of touch I don't know if it's still fashionable for parents to provide children with a weekly allowance and to encourage them to have part-time jobs.
Would this not strengthen their self-confidence, and they would not have to resort to shop-lifting?
I used to make a list of chores, putting a price tag on each chore.
This worked well!
One did the shopping, one the cooking, one the washing-up, etc. (We had absolutely no material possessions at that time, and I did not want my children to feel envious of others!)
Eventually, they confidently slipped into young adulthood.
I do believe harsh, sarcastic criticism of children does untold damage, should be avoided at all costs.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 20, 2014)

Hubby and I were comfortable because we were both drawing teachers' wages but we still tried to instil responsibility into our children. They each received an allowance but it was not a wage for doing chores. Even if we had nothing to give them they would still have had to contribute their share to the family and home in the form of chores. When they had the opportunity to go on a major school excursion they each had to save some of their pocket money towards it to emphasise that nothing comes for nothing. When each finished high school and before entering tertiary education they were both expected to get a temporary job because I wasn't having them loll about the house for three months, waking at noon and awake half the night.

They were both lucky to receive good educations but both have had to weather difficult periods raising their own children. I'm proud to say the grand children have all grown up to be fine young adults who should be resilient enough and well prepared enough to pass the important lessons on to the next generation.

But what of the children whose parents are incompetent or worse still, negligent? I believe that we, that is society in general, owes them something too. We owe them the best opportunities to build a worthwhile future for their sake and for the sake of us all. That's why schools, youth groups, welfare workers and neighbours are so very important. And grandparents more than anyone. No child should ever be written off or thrown early onto society's scrap heap.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Nov 21, 2014)

The example, structure, love and discipline provided by parents is the key to responsible offspring.  The government has tried to offset no or poor parenting but the results have been dismal for the most part...


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 21, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> The example, structure, love and discipline provided by parents is the key to responsible offspring.  The government has tried to offset no or poor parenting but the results have been dismal for the most part...



Not sure what the solution would be..  There are always going to be poor parents, particularly in poverty situations.  The cycle has to be broken somehow.. and I don't think taking the food out of children's mouths is the answer.  It seems like the pat answer to poverty is to take away benefits.. like that is suddenly going to force folks out to take that $50,000 a year job that is out there waiting for them..  Raising the minimum wage would be a start.  Perhaps if people didn't have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet they could be home more to attend to their kids.


----------

