Retribution

[Hazmatac]

Just wondering about the morality of retribution. If you are living in a society with an ineffective government, would you be right in taking justice into your own hands and giving the punishment yourself (maybe a beating or a killing)? Or should you only ostricize the wrong-doer, and he'll be left out of the community. What is the principle involved?

[DavidOdden]

If you are living in a society with an ineffective government, would you be right in taking justice into your own hands and giving the punishment yourself (maybe a beating or a killing)?

No. I can't imagine what would even vaguely suggest such a thing.

[L-C]

I doubt a bad society would be made better by such actions. Living in Sweden, where people get psychiatric "care" for 6 years after robbing someone of their life, I do certainly understand the sentiment. But the solution is to boycott the country, which I just might do in the future.

[Hazmatac]

No. I can't imagine what would even vaguely suggest such a thing.

Well, I just saw Godfather. In it, this man saw his daughters perpitrators go free, who raped her, with a minimal charge. In such a case, I was wondering if it would be just to take matters into your own hands, and say, beat them up or something to teach them the lesson that the government didn't do.

[L-C]

In such a case, I was wondering if it would be just to take matters into your own hands, and say, beat them up or something to teach them the lesson that the government didn't do.

But who will be part of the authorized group of people that can be trusted to act justly in matters of retributive force, as an entity outside the government? Because this kind of action won't be restricted to the good guys.

[Hazmatac]

But who will be part of the authorized group of people that can be trusted to act justly in matters of retributive force, as an entity outside the government? Because this kind of action won't be restricted to the good guys.

So what is the proper course of action if your girlfriend's killer is allowed to go free because he has a good lawyer? No action?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Objectivism is against vigilantism -- of taking the law into your own hands -- because the accuracy of your knowledge before committing retribution needs to be checked carefully, preferably in a court of law with proper investigations of the facts. The only real exception is for immediate reactions to a direct threat of force that one must act on or be killed or maimed. One has the right to self-defense, and can call upon it at any time, but having everyone act on what they think is the best solution to an injustice would break down law and order; it would basically be anarchy. And as someone else pointed out, it won't just be the rational man who seeks vigilantism, but the irrational as well, and we don't want people running around and taking the law into their own hands because then there will be gun fights in the streets, endangering everyone.

Seeking redress for a known criminal getting off due to lax laws or lax trials is a difficult one to assess. But if you do take action against the law, then you become a criminal. I suppose in the very rare case where you are willing to go to jail for life to kill a known killer who has gotten off, would be the only time it should even be considered; otherwise, you have to let justice run its course. And I don't think one should throw one's life away in that manner, so I'm not recommending it at all. It would basically be suicide by law or jail.

When a society becomes so corrupt that one can no longer count on the law in many cases or in most cases, then I would say that is the time to protest the laws or even go on strike. Or try to change the laws or campaign for better justice. Maybe hire a better sheriff or judge.

I mean, unless one is willing to live the life of some sort of masked avenger always sought by the law, I don't see any other recourse.

All kinds of injustices can occur, but in the long run, justice is metaphysical -- you can't really get away with committing a real injustice indefinitely, because fundamentally, an injustice is anti-reality.

[themadkat]

Along these lines, what is the morality of jury nullification? What if, say, the aforementioned lover kills his girlfriend's killer (who everyone knows is the killer and he got off on a technicality), then turns himself in and goes to trial, counting on the fact that when he gives his reasoning the jury will sympathize and hand down a "not guilty" verdict. If you are a jury member, is jury nullification in such an instance appropriate or must you morally follow the law? Is jury nullification EVER appropriate? I personally think it is in cases where the law is unjust (and I mean that in the sense that the law itself is wrong and shouldn't be enforced ever, as opposed to a claim that this is one instance where the law shouldn't be enforced). I think jury nullification is a valid protest on the part of a citizenry that a certain law should not exist. However, I recognize that it is a double-edged sword and that jury nullification can be used to let someone off who really ought to be punished.

I know this is a little off-topic but I think it's relevant because the cost-benefit equation for retribution changes when you think you will get the benefit of the doubt from a jury of your peers.

Objectivism is against vigilantism -- of taking the law into your own hands -- because the accuracy of your knowledge before committing retribution needs to be checked carefully, preferably in a court of law with proper investigations of the facts. The only real exception is for immediate reactions to a direct threat of force that one must act on or be killed or maimed. One has the right to self-defense, and can call upon it at any time, but having everyone act on what they think is the best solution to an injustice would break down law and order; it would basically be anarchy. And as someone else pointed out, it won't just be the rational man who seeks vigilantism, but the irrational as well, and we don't want people running around and taking the law into their own hands because then there will be gun fights in the streets, endangering everyone.

Seeking redress for a known criminal getting off due to lax laws or lax trials is a difficult one to assess. But if you do take action against the law, then you become a criminal. I suppose in the very rare case where you are willing to go to jail for life to kill a known killer who has gotten off, would be the only time it should even be considered; otherwise, you have to let justice run its course. And I don't think one should throw one's life away in that manner, so I'm not recommending it at all. It would basically be suicide by law or jail.

When a society becomes so corrupt that one can no longer count on the law in many cases or in most cases, then I would say that is the time to protest the laws or even go on strike. Or try to change the laws or campaign for better justice. Maybe hire a better sheriff or judge.

I mean, unless one is willing to live the life of some sort of masked avenger always sought by the law, I don't see any other recourse.

All kinds of injustices can occur, but in the long run, justice is metaphysical -- you can't really get away with committing a real injustice indefinitely, because fundamentally, an injustice is anti-reality.

[Myself]

Is jury nullification EVER appropriate?

Ask Howard Roark.

[D'kian]

Along these lines, what is the morality of jury nullification? What if, say, the aforementioned lover kills his girlfriend's killer (who everyone knows is the killer and he got off on a technicality), then turns himself in and goes to trial, counting on the fact that when he gives his reasoning the jury will sympathize and hand down a "not guilty" verdict.

And what if later it's found out the presumed killer really was innocent, at least of that particualr crime? How would the jurors feel then? How should they feel then?

The point is a private citizen lacks the resources, knowledge, experience and expertise to determine someone's guilt or innocence. You cannot trust him to be judge, jury and executioner for that reason alone (not to mention from the anarchy that would result if everyone could simply seek to right wrongs on his own).

If you are a jury member, is jury nullification in such an instance appropriate or must you morally follow the law?

I, personally, would find it hard to convict but would probably vote to convict anyway.

I personally think it is in cases where the law is unjust (and I mean that in the sense that the law itself is wrong and shouldn't be enforced ever, as opposed to a claim that this is one instance where the law shouldn't be enforced). I think jury nullification is a valid protest on the part of a citizenry that a certain law should not exist.

If you care so strongly about unjust laws you whould be trying to change them by all means available, such as writing op-eds, writing your representatives in the local, state and federal levels, etc. The jury box is not exactly the place to do it from.

Still, suppose you get one of these ridiculous drug cases where someone who had at best a tangential connection to some drug deal is looking at a draconian mandatory sentence. It would be impossible for me to convict an essentially innocent person of a non-crime to years in prison no matter what the law says or what oath I were to take as a juror.

[DavidOdden]

Along these lines, what is the morality of jury nullification?

Highly dubious. It is anarchy dressed up in a suit. The only context I can imagine it being morally acceptable is if the law itself is plainly improper, and you are forced to participate in a conviction -- for example a drug possession or tax evasion charge. Whereas there is nothing improper about a law against murder.

[themadkat]

Still, suppose you get one of these ridiculous drug cases where someone who had at best a tangential connection to some drug deal is looking at a draconian mandatory sentence. It would be impossible for me to convict an essentially innocent person of a non-crime to years in prison no matter what the law says or what oath I were to take as a juror.

This is kind of what I was driving at.

Highly dubious. It is anarchy dressed up in a suit. The only context I can imagine it being morally acceptable is if the law itself is plainly improper, and you are forced to participate in a conviction -- for example a drug possession or tax evasion charge. Whereas there is nothing improper about a law against murder.

I think this is the distinction I was trying to tease out. So in that case, it seems like as a juror it is only moral to vote to nullify if you believe the law should never be enforced ever against anyone (i.e. I would vote "not guilty" if I was supposed to convict a woman for having an abortion) but you can't nullify a sound law like the one against murder without risking the destruction of lawfulness itself, no matter how much you feel the person was justified in what they did.

By the way, in my original example, there was not supposed to be any doubt at all that the murdered man killed the murderer's girlfriend. Say there was a videotape showing it, like a security tape, but because the police obtained the video illegally for some reason it was thrown out of court and the jury was never allowed to see it, but the boyfriend saw it and it undisputably showed the guy he later targeted killing his girlfriend. It may sound farfetched but critically damning evidence gets thrown out of court all the time. More incentive for the police to keep it clean I guess.

[D'kian]

I think this is the distinction I was trying to tease out. So in that case, it seems like as a juror it is only moral to vote to nullify if you believe the law should never be enforced ever against anyone (i.e. I would vote "not guilty" if I was supposed to convict a woman for having an abortion)

I agree it would be wrong to convict someone of a non-crime like abrotion, taking drugs, prostitution, etc. BUt you must ask yourself two questions before trying to nullify the jury:

1) As a juror, are you exposed to charges for willfuly nullifying a veredict?

2) What does it do to the justice system?

Say there was a videotape showing it, like a security tape, but because the police obtained the video illegally for some reason it was thrown out of court and the jury was never allowed to see it, but the boyfriend saw it and it undisputably showed the guy he later targeted killing his girlfriend.

In that case it should be easy to sue the bastard for wrongful death. granted that's poor consolation and it might not even hurt him much (see O.J. Simpson), but that's what you can do within the law. If you do more, like killing the SOB, then you'll likely wind up in jail for the rest of your life. Is the rest of your life under such conditions worth the retribution extracted?

Edited July 8, 2009 by D'kian

[Jas0n]

In a civilized society, the task of law enforcement and all that comes with it (the justice system, penile system, etc) is delegated to the government.

"A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws." (AR, The Nature of Government, TVoS)

This is a system that's susceptible to human error. Police do occasionally appropriate evidence improperly, sometimes the prosecution gets a totally inept attorney, or the defense gets a great one... but these things are all part of a system which is designed to protect man's rights equally and objectively. That frustrating things happen sometimes is unfortunate, but certainly not an excuse to take matters into your own hands.