WHENEVER I think of the term “vigilante justice”, I think about what the word ‘justice’ means, and how too often those wishing to set themselves up as purveyors of the law attempt to skew its definition.The truth is that I can understand vigilantism. I can understand why and how the rule of law erodes when justice continually becomes frustrated and hindered. I can understand why, when someone looks at a victim, they feel the intrinsic need to lessen their plight and fight for them.

I really do understand, but I believe it is not something any rational or civil mind can support; because while it can yield a temporary belief that ‘justice’ has been done, it largely contributes to a visible breakdown in the system.

There exists in all of us the desire to avenge the wronged and to want justice for ourselves. However, at no time must this desire cause us to attack, maim or kill someone merely because they “looked suspicious”, or even because they might have committed a crime. Unless of course we are defending ourselves, we should never let persons strip us of our sense of reasoning and morality; because, despite how just we believe it to be, vigilantism is a slippery slope to anarchy.

Justice, for me, means due process. Yes, this often has its flaws, and it is through these flaws that vigilantism was born; but due process exists for a reason. So while we can all understand that sometimes criminals slip through the cracks of law enforcement and the judiciary, we should not perpetuate a practice of promoting a self-serving system wherein anyone seeing it fit can impose their own rules and punishments.

There is, of course, the question of whether vigilantism can be morally justified in cases where there is an absence of legal order, or what we conceive to be appropriate punishments for criminals. Any loss of life, whether that life was bad or good, is a tragedy; and living in a society where law prevails, it should not be acceptable for citizens to take the law into their own hands. If we continue to let vigilantism go unpunished, we not only give into the idea that persons should die or be badly beaten because of some real or imagined transgression, but we also become indistinguishable from the alleged criminals we seek to punish.

That, I believe, is one of the things I find most troubling about vigilantism. While it is definitely not something to be taken lightly, I cannot help seeing the irony in the fact that, in supposed acts of goodwill, we often maim and murder as we ‘rationally’ break the law in pursuit of justice. We have in our society, and in societies around the world, a very romantic perception of vigilantism, which have caused entire industries, such as the comic book industry, to be based on it. We see these vigilantes as being selfless persons or groups who are trying to bring a sense of order to the dysfunction that can often be the legal system. However people, in their fervour to support vigilantism, fail to ask several questions, a major one of which is ‘what if the person is innocent?’

Aside from that, vigilante groups can often be prone to biases and corruption; and often, instead of actually getting rid of an oppressive or inefficient ruler, a space is created which anyone thinking they are fit can fill.

Much like all other debatable topics, there will always be those who believe that vigilantism is right. As a people, we must learn to take impartial, dispassionate stances on issues such as vigilantism; and for those who do not agree with this suggestion, I would just like to say one thing: Anger does not justify violence, emotion does not justify killing, and injustice definitely does not justify injustice.