- This topic has 16 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Vigilantism is the act of preventing, investigating, and punishing perceived offenses and crimes without legal authority. What are your thoughts on vigilante justice? Do you think vigilantism is ever justified? Was Mart justified in his actions? Would you ever consider taking justice into your own hands? Why or why not?
-
I am ashamed to say that there are times when I wish vigilante justice was acceptable. The crimes that tRump is getting away with make my blood boil and my heart ache for proper justice. The OJ Simpson case and trial is another example or the poor female who is brutally raped but the rapist gets off because his dad is rich. These are examples of when our justice system has failed society. Everyone knows they are guilty but the system can be bought one way or another. If one has endless amounts of money they can buy the best legal teams and afford to delay court hearings and appeal rulings all the way to the Supreme Court. Now, in the US it seems , if you have enough money and power you can even buy the Supreme Court.
Much of the Searcher is about our moral codes and I feel like half of our nation has lost sight of theirs or else they never had one. Morality: respect, responsibility, fairness, honesty, and compassion, no longer set the standard for our leaders. These are the people our young children use as models. It’s how they define their code of ethics. And so the cycle will continue. Their priorities are based on the almighty dollar no matter who gets hurt along the way.
Mart’s moral code seems to say “everything goes if it can be rationalized as being for the greater good.” I don’t see that Mart stood to personally gain from his actions but covering up an accidental death, denying a family closure by knowing what has happened to their loved one is denying them the right to grieve and move forward with some semblance of peace. I disagree with Mart’s self appointed role as Ardnakelty’s ruler. There are better ways of handling situations such as Brendan’s without causing bodily harm and/or death to anyone.
My moral code, in reality, does not agree with vigilante behavior being our form of justice. What we need to do is take a long hard look at our justice system and improve it to eliminate its flaws. To ensure that those who can’t afford top lawyers have the same quality of defense as those with the big bucks. To level that playing field and end the notion that “rank hath its privileges”. We need to spend more time and money looking at the root causes of crimes and inhumane behavior. Only when we know the reason for behaviors can we begin to change them.I do apologize for turning this into a political rant. It’s just so timely right now.
-
I don’t feel that your comment is a political rant at all – your comment fits nicely into this discussion. I also completely agree with you, although I am struggling with justifying vigilante justice at the moment. When one’s actions negatively affect not only those in your community, but also your entire country and also the lives of people from all parts of the world, something is very wrong.
-
Totally agree with you, Libby!
-
I agree that your comment, Libby, is not a political rant. We have the misfortune of living in times that match a question that should be more or less academic.
-
No apology necessary Libby; not a political rant and I agree with you.
-
-
There are numerous references to the Wild West, especially Cal’s Henry twenty-two lever-action rifle which was the rifle used by the cowboys of that time. Vigilante justice was part and parcel of that time period. There were places then where there was no law enforcement or law enforcement worked for the lawless criminals. However, I do not think that vigilante justice is justified. Neither were Mart’s actions justified because Mart and the lads were going to put manners on Brendan due to what they thought was disrespect shown to them as his elders, not because he was setting up a meth lab. Of course, in the fight to teach Brendan “manners”, he hit his head and died. Mart’s idea is always to take care of things, rather than going to the authorities. If he had gone to the authorities instead of taking matters into his own hands, Brendan might not have died. Vigilante justice is too close to today’s happenings.
-
So…this proves to be a little more nuanced answer than I first thought. I realize that my answer is a bit less clear when I think of the context. When I think of this question against the background of the times and people in “The Frozen River” (our previous book club discussion) I would say I oppose vigilante justice but actually have a degree of acceptance. Like Martha, I consider neither Ephraim nor Jonathan or Sam as “bad” for their enactment of justice against the men who raped the wives or women they loved. Those were certainly extrajudicial killings but, at least in those accounts, I can live with that. In “The Searcher,” not so much. I see Mart and the actions of his friends as unacceptable. Brendan did not deserve to die, neither Cal nor Trey deserved to be beaten. No matter the perceived wrong or the threat to the people of Ardnakelty, there existed a judicial and accessible path. Mart says that Brendan’s death was an accident, and maybe it was. But it was still unnecessary and the actions of those involved pretty close to unforgivable.
It is challenging now to see a path to justice for many and the current US political climate makes the idea of accountability pretty far fetched. Still, I am reluctant to countenance extrajudicial actions.
-
It feels like our discussion of The Frozen River was years ago to me, with all that’s been happening, which is why I so appreciate Jane’s comment. Again, I hadn’t considered a 1789’s Martha Ballard perspective at all. I agree with you Jane. And Nancy’s mention of the Wild West as well – I know that Tana French wrote the book with Westerns in mind – good point Nancy.
This discussion has again painted more clearly how time, place and circumstance dictate what is morally right and wrong. While I was in classes for my MBA, it was a bit of a joke in many courses that the answers to questions were “it depends”, but it truly does depend on society and what individuals in any particular society collectively approve or disapprove of. Acting within laws does not necessarily classify “justice” as moral acts, as is evidenced by corrupt governments accusing people of crimes that may or may not have been committed in order to justify their crimes. In the cases where laws and those who enforce them are corrupt, vigilantism may be the moral act to save others from harm. We do need to think critically on situations and judge whether we are just following laws because that is what we’ve been taught or whether we are behaving within our own moral compasses and following the lead of those we truly respect.
That said, I am typically a rule follower. I even hesitate to jay walk on most occasions. But that is because I feel grateful to my community, and to Canada for providing a wonderful society for its citizens, and I have respect for the laws and the legal system where I reside. An act of vigilante justice is not something I would consider.
-
There’s a lot of wild and violent history of vigilantism in Ireland that dates back centuries with the oppression by the English. Ireland was, in many ways, an occupied land. So there is that long history of defending against outsiders, and a distrust of outsiders. So I think Mart could, in part, justify his actions because he views the drug traffickers as another negative occupier, bringing violence and destruction. The garda officer that talks to Cal says that the villagers, “rather keep us out of it, unless they have no choice at all.” So this indicates a long-standing vigilante justice. The problem with that is it can lead to cruel, terrible, and unpredictable violence.
I was worried about Cal when he was attacked and they hit his knee. It reminded me that in Ireland IRA fighters had a terrible technique of kneecapping people and crippling them, so the thugs’ actions reminded me of the Irish Troubles and brutality of that. And when Mart explains that Brendan’s death was an accident, it shows that vigilante justice often can have unintended consequences. So no, I don’t think vigilantism is justified as it breaks from rules and order. If you don’t have an agreed-to set of laws and rules that people can trust and adhere to, you’ve got chaos and mob rule, or one man (in this case Mart) deciding what is right and wrong. And if you put the power of the law in the hands of a few who see themselves as outside of, or above, the law then all you’ll have as result is vigilante justice. Sadly, this is the situation at play in the US now. Nancy mentions the Wild West and Westerns, and Cal is very much the outsider lawman who comes to town to restore peace and balance.
-
Tara-Thank you for the historical perspective. I remember following “The Troubles” in the news and the break through that The Good Friday agreement represented. I have only visited Ireland after that time. I am certain that the memory of the years of occupation and of sectarian violence are not easily forgotten. In that sense, Mart’s and the reaction of others fits in the setting of a rural Irish town and undoubtedly makes sense for them.
-
-
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.
-
I so appreciate the discussions in this group! So many perspectives that I hadn’t considered before. While I wouldn’t consider vigilante justice myself, I can understand where it may be justified. In The Searcher, Mart’s actions are clearly against Irish laws. But they are acceptable in his village. So laws and rules can change depending on the community and society in which you belong. The village has its own rules and laws and largely reject their country’s laws and law enforcement officers unless absolutely necessary.
However, in every society, the laws must be agreed upon by all citizens and they must apply to all citizens, otherwise it is a lawless society and vigilantism doesn’t actually exist.
-
So many interesting comments! I haven’t much to add but everyone’s insights have me reflecting on the nature of justice and what makes for “good justice” or “bad justice” and whose judgement is “right” or “wrong”? Thorny questions with no easy answers. Any system of law needs consensus from all sides, and as Susan notes, Mart and his pals think their system works better than the laws of the land. And they may be partially right because the law enforcement in the area is ineffectual and lazy, as seen through Dennis O’Malley who’s more interested in eating cake and ignoring problems than enforcing the law. So where do you draw the line? I think that’s one of the strengths of what Tana French does in her story – showing that people like Cal are trying to do their best to be moral and just, but they struggle with the systems of justice in the society around them.
-
I believe a central question about vigilante justice, or extrajudicial actions, is who gets to decide the standard or determine what is right or wrong. Laws can be wrongly written and judicial decisions made in error and I fear that both are happening or will in our current US government. It is also true that one person’s deeply held belief or value, view of what should be, can be remarkably different from another’s. I think our best hope for even handed and lasting justice is a non-partisan judicial system. And I sure hope it works here.
-
I think you nailed it Jane. When we discuss vigilante justice, our immediate notion is based on fair and just laws. But that is not always the case at all
-
-
I just came across this post and thought it fit right into our discussion on laws and vigilante justice. If vigilantism includes keeping Jewish people safe, protesting racism or freeing slaves, then there are certainly times when vigilantism is more than justified, in my opinion.
Here's the meme text because the message is super important:The Holocaust was legal – hiding jews was criminalizedSlavery was legal – freeing slaves was criminalizedSegregation was legal – protesting racism was criminalizedFriendly reminder:LEGALITY ISN'T A GUIDE TO MORALITY.
— JayLeeBeanz (@jayleebeanz.creator.blue) 2025-02-10T20:12:17.916Z
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.