Should the families of murder victims be given the chance to "HANDLE" the murderer?

[WskyDK]

No, that's not Justice. It's revenge.

And this is where the thread should have ended.

[Reg]

Brain says no, heart says yes. Brain prevails.

[Zogarth]

Obviously you wouldn't allow it unless there's absolutely no question that person is guilty. Guilt by conjecture wouldn't qualify.

So it would never be used unless the criminal was caught in the act.

And this is where the thread should have ended.

Lets be fair, we could discuss the definition of justice without any end, and many equates the two very much.

[Arganis]

The current system is already that people aren't supposed to be convicted unless there's absolutely no question, yet people regularly have their convictions overturned on new evidence.

That's because the current system allows you to jail someone when there's 'enough' evidence, doesn't mean the evidence is always a bloody knife with a full set of fingerprints. I would reserve what OP is talking about for when the evidence might as well be footage of the murder.

So it would never be used unless the criminal was caught in the act.

Essentially, yes. I think that would be the only time it's ok.

[Jaed]

Isn't this just vigilantism? By definition, which would be illegal:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...om/Vigilantism

Vigilantism
Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security; action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher law than that enacted by society's designated lawmaking institutions; private enforcement of legal norms in the absence of an established, reliable, and effective law enforcement body.
The foundation of the American legal system rests on the Rule of Law, a concept embodied in the notion that the United States is a nation of laws and not of men. Under the rule of law, laws are thought to exist independent of, and separate from, human will. Even when the human element factors into legal decision making, the decision maker is expected to be constrained by the law in making his or her decision. In other words, police officers, judges, and juries should act according to the law and not according to their personal preferences or private agendas.
State and federal governments are given what amounts to a Monopoly over the use of force and violence to implement the law. Private citizens may use force and violence to defend their lives and their property, and in some instances the lives and property of others, but they must do so under the specific circumstances allowed by the law if they wish to avoid being prosecuted for a crime themselves. Private individuals may also make "citizen arrests," but the circumstances in which the law authorizes them to do so are very narrow. Citizens are often limited to making arrests for felonies committed in their presence. By taking law into their own hands, vigilantes flout the rule of law, effectively becoming lawmaker, police officer, judge, jury, and appellate court for the cause they are pursuing.

The is quite a bit of information, but it seems like this goes completely against the foundation that the United States was built upon.
That being said my husband wouldn't hesitate to inflict his own justice if someone did something to myself or our daughter. Long before Justice has a chance to be implemented.

[WskyDK]

Isn't this just vigilantism? By definition, which would be illegal:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...om/Vigilantism

Vigilantism
Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security; action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher law than that enacted by society's designated lawmaking institutions; private enforcement of legal norms in the absence of an established, reliable, and effective law enforcement body.
The foundation of the American legal system rests on the Rule of Law, a concept embodied in the notion that the United States is a nation of laws and not of men. Under the rule of law, laws are thought to exist independent of, and separate from, human will. Even when the human element factors into legal decision making, the decision maker is expected to be constrained by the law in making his or her decision. In other words, police officers, judges, and juries should act according to the law and not according to their personal preferences or private agendas.
State and federal governments are given what amounts to a Monopoly over the use of force and violence to implement the law. Private citizens may use force and violence to defend their lives and their property, and in some instances the lives and property of others, but they must do so under the specific circumstances allowed by the law if they wish to avoid being prosecuted for a crime themselves. Private individuals may also make "citizen arrests," but the circumstances in which the law authorizes them to do so are very narrow. Citizens are often limited to making arrests for felonies committed in their presence. By taking law into their own hands, vigilantes flout the rule of law, effectively becoming lawmaker, police officer, judge, jury, and appellate court for the cause they are pursuing.

The is quite a bit of information, but it seems like this goes completely against the foundation that the United States was built upon.
That being said my husband wouldn't hesitate to inflict his own justice if someone did something to myself or our daughter. Long before Justice has a chance to be implemented.

To get technical; it wouldn't be vigilantism because it's endorsed by law, and therefor not illegal.

[-aiko-]

Brain says no, heart says yes. Brain prevails.

Sums up my thought process as well.

[Aoyi]

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. You can't let the families get revenge. It needs to be up to the court to decide. There are too many factors to consider. What if the accused is innocent and the real killer has yet to be caught? What if they are guilty, but it was simply an accident? What if they are guilty, but were acting in self defense? We need to rely on the courts for a non-biased judgement of the case based on the facts presented?

[Kapadons]

I think if they are caught, the justice system deems them guilty, on the way to life in prison they leave the guy handcuffed in a room with the victims father for a 2 minutes. Can't kill him, but a few revenge hits on the way to prison, no harm in that.

But I would let the families of the worst kinds of murder/rape be the ones to "flip the switch" or push the plunger. Sometimes we really need to bring back firing squads.

[May90]

Of course not. Blood revenge is something that should remain in history forever.

[Zenfoldor]

No, that's not Justice. It's revenge.

Your implication is that no one should ever get revenge over the murder of a loved one, correct?

[Theinquisition]

Well....

I think if someone is convicted of murder, I wouldn't be against the murderer being handcuffed and thrown into a closed room with the family of the victim.

I mean, they are going to die anyway.

Of course only in cases where guilt is unquestionable such as a guilty plea, confession, or if they were literally caught in the act.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Of course they shouldn't...

[Simulacrum]

Nah. The impartial administering of justice is one of the primary purposes of government. Without it you're pretty much just asking to live in an extremely violent honor culture society. So the government should never let people take matters into their own hands.

But on a personal level, yeah, you should want to kill anyone who murders your family members, at least in cases like the ones in the OP. The to me only good reasons not to want to do that are the aforementioned one, and the uncertainty inherent to administering what's basically mob justice. It's hard to know whether the guy you want to kill really did it or not, so you don't wanna go around killing everyone you think deserves it since chances are high they don't. Cases where there's no ambiguity as to their guilt, though... like Breivik... people like that guy should be dismembered and flayed alive naked in front of a mirror. Probably a bad idea to have the government administering such punishments, though. Normalizes the brutality.

[Deleted]

No, that's not Justice. It's revenge.

^Exactly. So no, they definitely should not.

[Mehrunes]

What could possibly go wrong with lynching and turning it into public entertainment?

[Theinquisition]

What could possibly go wrong with lynching and turning it into public entertainment?

Nothing...

Release the lions!!!

[Powerogue]

No, that's not Justice. It's revenge.

Exactly. The whole point of the justice system is to try to be at least a little objective about the situation.

Though I admittedly said in the last thread on this I wouldn't have stopped the guy trying to get said revenge, it should not be a legal thing. It's "I would begrudgingly turn the other way even though this is wrong" not "this is okay and should be part of the legal process".

[Deleted]

Should at least be allowed to kick them in the nuts.

[Mornic]

if the person is proven guilty without a doubt i think they should be able to. if theres a chance that they are innocent then no