Reply To: The Searcher: Thoughts on vigilante justice
I, like Jane, was thinking about The Frozen River when I saw this question. I do believe that in past times, the law was in its rudimentary form, and wasn’t available to all in our forming nations; thus, sometimes people formed their own codes and acted upon them. And as long as those people had good moral fiber and truly sought justice against evil acts and had no other recourse, then I found it more acceptable.
But then I started thinking about who decides what’s reprehensible, and who does not; when a group of people decide that someone is a threat just because they don’t like them and what they believe or how they might have looked or acted, or feel they may gain something by eliminating them. I think of lynching, and beatings, and all manner of vigilantism that people justify because it’s correct and honorable in THEIR minds. Who draws the line? When is it justice, and when is it criminal? When is it just insane? That’s why we need good laws and proper enforcement. It’s true all over the world. People do need boundaries, and rules, if they’re going to coexist harmoniously in modern times. So I believe in law, and don’t condone vigilantism, and I hate when I see it glorified.
But I also know that laws are often flawed, and justice is often not done, and human error is rampant, and some people have developed the ability to twist the letter of the law to their own purpose. Every law case, it seems, is a game to be won; say just the right thing, appeal to just the right audience, exert just the right amount of coercion, and you may win. The challenge is to build the best case, find the right evidence, and use the laws to find justice, and get the best legal advocates you can in your corner, but even when that’s done, it’s becoming increasingly frightening and disheartening to see how often these days it just doesn’t seem to matter. Good strong cases are often won, yet ignored. Some cases are lost because somebody was clever enough to find a technicality that works for them, right or wrong. I really struggle with that. That said, I still feel that we need to use good laws -lawfully- and work to change those that are unfair or not working — legally. It will take our best and brightest, but I’m hoping they’re still out there and wanting to work for us. I don’t have that particular gift, but I believe there are people who do.
In the case of Mart and his cronies in Arknakelty, they didn’t trust their system to work for them, so they gave up trying (if they ever did in the first place) and started taking matters into their own hands. But how hard did they really try? How much has Mart been enjoying his power, his control over the village, his influence? Is he really altruistic in his goals? Were there better solutions? I think there were, and I don’t like that he and his friends literally get away with murder (involuntary manslaughter, maybe? I don’t know the proper charge, but I’m sure there would be one. And covering up all the evidence, etc.). These guys aren’t cowboys, no matter how they see themselves; they live in an era of accessible law; they need to try to work with it.
