Committing a crime against a known criminal is acceptable


More controversial questioning for the greater…:smirk: Feel free to vote and if you care to explain your decision/point of view or insight on the matter, do so. Questioning and possible explanations will sate curiosity on the majority thoughts, and aid in, in game debates of debatable issues.

Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree


It depends on what they did, a crime (Theft/assault/murder) against a murder would be ok in my opinion (Depending on who they killed), and I think its safe to say that any crime would be perfectly acceptable against rapists/human traffickers/etc.


Have you ever heard the saying “Two wrongs don’t make a right”? It’s fairly popular as far as I know. The thing is, crime is very clearly defined as something that is against the law, but pretty much nothing else in your question is very well defined at all. A major reason vigilanteism is illegal is because people are idiots who often care more about making themselves feel better by getting revenge on someone they believe to be unjust than actually serving justice. It doesn’t matter if the person is actually guilty as long as the punisher believes they are. That is why due process is so important.


A crime against criminals? I need a Death Note…
Disagree, it would put me at risk. If it was legal on the other hand…


No opinion, just attempting to bring some science in:

The human impulse to punish wrongdoers is very strong. Evolutionarily, we have to expect that if we don’t cooperate, we will be punished. Otherwise one monkey could hide in the bushes while the rest gather berries and pretend he was helping all along. If the other monkeys scream and hit him for not helping, that’s monkey punishment for a monkey crime. So all the monkeys gather food, since nobody wants to be forced out.

So we punish criminals because if we didn’t punish criminals, nothing would ever get done. Even if you could separate the criminal from society, rehabilitate him completely, while also not trampling on his rights to freedom etc, we would still need to have some sort of punishment or at least social consequences to act as a deterrent against other potential criminals. The trick is balancing it - too much punishment and you’re trampling on people’s rights, too little and nobody is scared enough to not steal, rape, and murder.

Nobody is ever happy with that balance.

I’m not saying there aren’t other ways to suppress antisocial behavior, like strong societal norms of cooperation and justice, or support structures so fewer people need to steal things, but I think deterrent will always be an essential part of crime management systems unless human nature fundamentally changes.


looking on real world - father/mother wanting to take vengeance on someone that hurt there child is understandable. Random dude punishing “bad guys” on the other hand - meh. law has more holes then hobos socks “known criminal” can be innocent wrongly accused, someone that said they are guilty to protect someone else or they accepted money for paying for someone else crimes. If majority thinks someone’s criminal doesn’t make them a criminal.

Looking from point of story and entertainment - Random dude punishing “bad guys” is okay. I love death note. There is difference from what is acceptable in real life and fiction.


I don’t think that’s what this thread it about.


I don’t think small deviations from the established topic are verboten as long as they might be interesting to someone and are at least vaguely related, such as a sociological/evoluitionary point of view on crime and punishment in a thread about crime.


I find the evolutionary reasons we do these things really fascinating. Humans have all the little ticks, like a sense of justice, liking music, gossiping… Of course, our modern societies are much more complex and efficient than any proto-tribal thing monkeys would have. And now I’m straying from the topic a bit too far, so I’m shutting up on it.


I am confuse about your question but here I go.

To commit a crime against a known criminal is acceptable? Hmmmm. The idea of committing a crime is punishable by law because crime is breaking a law.It depends where you live and the jurisdiction you are under. How do you break a law by going against a criminal? Maybe an example of that would be you murdering the criminal when you can have another way to bring him to justice and not being limited. If you are in a tight situation and being assaulted having no choices but to act out and kill that person then that is out of self-defence.

To commit a crime against a criminal shouldn’t be acceptable. But then again laws do have somewhat a loophole and has its flaws yet still only a suitable system in society. Then again in western countries because I don’t know much about other countries laws or those that have their ‘weird’ little agenda laws. Its really up to the punisher, judge, whom who has the rights to deem whether it was acceptable or not.

But then I have to say disagree. In special cases it can be acceptable but that is kind of rare so I am going to disagree.


I’m going to come under a lot of flack and maybe a flag for saying this, but I strongly agree. Our justice system is supposed to be perfect, but it’s not. It allows individuals who can lie through mannerisms to trick a jury, and judge even, to get an ultimately lighter sentence. The case where retribution is ok in my book, is where another person’s life was taken, or ruined or an attempt at doing either should be punished as if they succeeded. (rape, murder, pedophillic actions or urges, kidnapping, etc.) I also believe that most minor crimes have some situations where they should be allowed (I.e, a starving homeless person stealing food from someone.)


If a person flagged you or called you stupid is not only disrespectful but utterly rude. Your merely expressing your opinion and nevertheless being sensible so don’t be scared to express your opinion. If your sensible, thoughtful and not rude then surely I don’t think anyone would attack you in this community, hopefully not.

They can argue about your opinion, they have the rights but rudeness shouldn’t be tolerated, hopefully. Because I didn’t read the guidelines of this website so…yeah, hopefully.


I highlighted a huge problem with what you just said in my very first post in this thread. A vigilante seeking justice that the courts failed to provide could just be a crazy person attacking an innocent person because they’ve decided in their insanity that they’re guilty. Also, law and morality are not the same thing. This whole topic has been shifting back and forth between one and the other without any real indication which is being discussed at the time.


Short answer: No.

Long answer:

It all relies on two things; Justification and rehabilitation.

Justification is simple, here stands a convicted rapist, a murderer and a child molester. We know they do it, maybe they’ve been convicted of the crime, maybe we know they have been let off on mere technicalities, whatever. People can justify the act of retribution against them, maybe kill them, maybe rape them back, an eye for an eye. Or maybe it’s simply a case of stealing or causing damage to their operation or daily life in order to make it harder for them to commit their crimes. Whatever the case, you’ll never get a consensus, but you very well may get a group of people leaning towards a particular cause of action or witch-hunt.

But your query is far too wide. A known criminal? Of what? Do we go as far to justify committing civil offences against those who trespass? Do we go as far to justify committing crimes against those who maybe did something silly when they were drunk? For example, a person who punched a window in order not to take his anger out on another human being, who subsequently turned himself in and was convicted but let go as a redeemable person who committed a (hopefully) one off offence? His crime? Minor Criminal Damage. Does he thus become a justified target for ‘criminal activity’?

And what of those who are committing the ‘crime’ against those known criminals? Do they automatically become eligible to be attacked tit for tat, because even if something is ‘acceptable’ it doesn’t mean that it isn’t any more a crime than what the original offenders did in the first place. You’ll end up with a world of ‘criminals’, whether known or otherwise.

The second factor is Rehabilitation;

You can’t justify committing crimes against a person who is a ‘known criminal’ who may very well be on the path to rehabilitation. Interacting with society and attempting to reform their ways, they may well have not committed an offence for an exceedingly long period of time (5, 10, 15 years), that they committed one offence doesn’t necessarily mean they should be subject to criminal offences, nor should it be acceptable for that. There has to be a period of time that allows the offender to not re-offend, in fact plenty of people don’t re-offend, people do minor crimes, usually when young and doing something in the heat of the moment, or down to immaturity and deserve the chance to get back into their lives as the criminal system and society is want to do.

A third factor, is that each crime is an individual incident that requires in-depth examination of the circumstances. Some are victims of circumstances, some are victims of provocation or of a situation they weren’t fully aware of. Plus, the legal system in some events do not allow for defences to some offences, for example being an ‘illegal alien’ in the UK without permission was an offence that only required you to BE in the UK without permission, it had no defences to that charge, (going off memory) a woman was evicted from France border control and put on a plane to England, she was arrested on the spot and charged and convicted of that crime before being deported back to her homeland of Ireland, is she too, now a target that is acceptable? She has the criminal record, for something she had no control over.

The more you know of the intricacies of law, the way it operates, the defences, the non-defences and the purposes of the legal system, the more you can attempt to rationalise whether something is ‘acceptable’ or not. I think the reasons I’ve given, more than explain the reasons why the answer to your statement is ‘no’, and I believe there is no way, an educated person of law could argue otherwise, as a whole and not in ‘parts’ or in scenarios, how the law would be able to operate within its system on an objective basis and any attempts to do so in a subjective manner would result in the power going to a person, or group of persons who would eventually be the victim of ‘he who fights monsters’.


My apologies on the non exactness of the question, but it was formed that way so you may interpret it as you please. I personally would disagree on the scale due to, just because someone committed a crime doesn’t mean one should sink to their level and also become a criminal, treating them as if they were less than an animal for wrongs they committed.

Though I can see the other perspective of things, which keeps me from ultimately strongly disagreeing.

Though keep in mind the topic statement is, committing a crime against a known criminal is acceptable.

Is it alright to commit crimes against someone who is a criminal? Say they murdered your family, is it okay (in the hypothetical speaking of course), to take vengeance?

If a thief stole everything in your house and left you on the streets struggling, you found where they live, but you have no way of proving to the authorizes that the materials are yours, is it okay to take them back?

If a country lopaunched missiles without declaring war (international crime) is it ok to send in the G.I. Joes to “take care” of those behind the launch?


If everyone is interpreting the question however they please then no one will understand what anyone else is talking about, resulting in the conversation being nothing more than people saying words at each other.


The main point was getting insight on people personal interpretation of it. I would use that as originally posted, in order to build proper ideals and support for that ideal.

Though debate is still possible simply by agreeing or disagreeing to the statement in a general form.

There are thousands of crimes. Instead of simply picking one. People can pick which ones they define as the general worst. Which seems to be rapist, mole storms, murderers, and thieves.

From there people justify weather or not the original statement of committing crimes of their own whatever that may be is acceptable or not and how strongly.


Subjective analysis on a general scale is going to throw up far too many variables, hence the reason the answer is no, ditto for any objective attempt to analyse these things in a general sense.

That’s why I’ve already said, on the whole any reasonable answer will be ‘no’. Looking at isolated examples is merely justification theory at work and can’t be used to give an indication for a more ‘general’ purpose.

Your three examples are each subjective about individual crimes, each with different methods of legal recourse and action that can be taken and in some cases, even flawed. Your international example, could very well have the GI Joes being a justified legal response to an international crime in the first place.

What you’re asking for, an agreement/disagreement in ‘general form’ is simply not going to be realistic if you’re looking to examine the in-depth consequences of that. You’ll have those in the yes/no camp who may very well have no understanding of the issues at hand, nor the knock on consequences of those actions in both a legal and social sense.

So my position is unchanged from my first post, that the answer is a resounding no on the grounds of all the reasons I’ve already put forth.


That’s not a debate. Just having people say whether they agree or disagree with a poorly defined statement is at best a mostly useless poll. If no one knows what anyone else actually means then the “debate” is just people talking at each other and most likely getting upset.


I’m not saying that attacks should be based on rumor, but if there is evidence that is ignored by our justice system, but is plain as day to all who saw it that the person is guilty, I think a vigilante can solve problems that the police sometimes just can’t. Say a pedophile is arrested and imprisoned after trial, but is let out after a few months, only to harm another child. The law system would just throw them in jail again for a few months, maybe a year, but the cycle would continue unless he is A. Jailed permanently or B. “Taken care of” by a vigilante