![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vigilante justice
Oct. 31st, 2008 07:13 pmI've been watching a new show (well, sort of new, it was a web experiment before) on the sci-fi channel; Sanctuary. It isn't great, I'm not sure it is even that good, but it's interesting, and light, and has lot's of potential. I like the world that is very much like ours, but with an entire hidden world that most people ignore. I like the cryptic British woman who runs Sanctuary (a haven for monsters and humans with strange talents), and I like the psychologist who suddenly finds that the world is much bigger than he thought. It hasn't got the depth of Joss Whedon, or even the complexity of Dr. Who, but it is enjoyable in a predictable way.
Anyway, one of the things that Sanctuary does, in the process of studying and saving monsters, is to fight the nasty things. But, can you fight something in a vigilante sort of way, outside of the police force, and not be contributing to anarchy? I think that you can in certain specific circumstances, but I also think that it is hard to not slip over into the darkness. Buffy draws the line with humans, Sanctuary presumably does the same, both for two reasons. First, the law does not recognize the existence of monsters. The monsters are evil, and commit evil acts, placing themselves against society, but society does not acknowledge their existence, and so cannot bring them to justice. Because the lawful arm of society will not act against these criminals, Buffy and Sanctuary are justified in bringing them to justice. Second, and on a somewhat related point, law cannot bring the monsters to justice. Law does not have the capabilities to capture or keep confined monsters that can teleport, have inhuman strength, and so on. Because the law does not recognize the existence of the monsters, and could not bring them to justice if it did, Sanctuary is justified in fighting them, not only in self defense, but to actually seek out the monsters.
There is, however, a danger, and that is that the fighters, that Buffy or Sanctuary, may think themselves above the law. I think the line is drawn for ordinary human criminals. There must be a distinction. Where the law is able to function, in ordinary cases such as robbery by an ordinary person, it must be allowed to function unhindered by interference. Sanctuary cannot suddenly start hunting robbers and punishing them. If they do that, they become vigilantes in the worst sense of the word, because they have placed themselves outside the law, and have become criminals themselves. If, through whatever means, society was to recognize the existence of the monsters and develop the capabilities to deal with them (which is possibly within the realm of Sanctuary, as the primary weapons of Sanctuary are technology and knowledge), then Sanctuary would no longer be justified in fighting the monsters, or pursuing justice, in the same way that they are not now justified in pursuing justice in regards to crimes of the ordinary human.
This also applies to superheros. (As a sidenote, I thought both Batman movies explored this in interesting ways.) When superheroes save the world, their purpose cannot be justice, unless they are a part of the law enforcement, and subject to the same laws as, for instance, police officers. They cannot be allowed to be above the law. They may, as any citizen, aid the police in capturing and subduing dangerous people, who may even have superpowers, and may even, in self defense, end the life of the supervillains, but they cannot be primarily involved as a private citizen with justice. If a private citizen takes into their own hands the issue of justice, they become a vigilante, and are in danger of becoming a dictator when they have superpowers. They become a benevolent version of the ranting supervillain, because they presume to act outside of law and government. Compare, for instance, the difference of a superhero who chooses to rid the world of evil supervillains however he or she sees fit, punishing them however he or she thinks is appropriate, and a superhero who acts through the power of an elected official. If you elect a superhero as president, for instance, they operate within society. If a superhero acts as a private citizen to aid the law in capturing dangerous criminals, they operate within society. If a superhero acts within some branch of the military or law enforcement, they operate within society. But if a superhero acts as an individual in order to bring justice to criminals, they act outside of society, because they do not lawfully or justifiably hold that power. Superheros are somewhat different from the example of Sanctuary or Buffy, because generally in the world of superheros the existence of supervillains, monsters and so on is acknowledged, and there is at least some provision for dealing with them.
I think this is also related to Robin Hood, and why he is justified in stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It has to do with operating with a social and justice system as much as possible. But that is another post.
Anyway, one of the things that Sanctuary does, in the process of studying and saving monsters, is to fight the nasty things. But, can you fight something in a vigilante sort of way, outside of the police force, and not be contributing to anarchy? I think that you can in certain specific circumstances, but I also think that it is hard to not slip over into the darkness. Buffy draws the line with humans, Sanctuary presumably does the same, both for two reasons. First, the law does not recognize the existence of monsters. The monsters are evil, and commit evil acts, placing themselves against society, but society does not acknowledge their existence, and so cannot bring them to justice. Because the lawful arm of society will not act against these criminals, Buffy and Sanctuary are justified in bringing them to justice. Second, and on a somewhat related point, law cannot bring the monsters to justice. Law does not have the capabilities to capture or keep confined monsters that can teleport, have inhuman strength, and so on. Because the law does not recognize the existence of the monsters, and could not bring them to justice if it did, Sanctuary is justified in fighting them, not only in self defense, but to actually seek out the monsters.
There is, however, a danger, and that is that the fighters, that Buffy or Sanctuary, may think themselves above the law. I think the line is drawn for ordinary human criminals. There must be a distinction. Where the law is able to function, in ordinary cases such as robbery by an ordinary person, it must be allowed to function unhindered by interference. Sanctuary cannot suddenly start hunting robbers and punishing them. If they do that, they become vigilantes in the worst sense of the word, because they have placed themselves outside the law, and have become criminals themselves. If, through whatever means, society was to recognize the existence of the monsters and develop the capabilities to deal with them (which is possibly within the realm of Sanctuary, as the primary weapons of Sanctuary are technology and knowledge), then Sanctuary would no longer be justified in fighting the monsters, or pursuing justice, in the same way that they are not now justified in pursuing justice in regards to crimes of the ordinary human.
This also applies to superheros. (As a sidenote, I thought both Batman movies explored this in interesting ways.) When superheroes save the world, their purpose cannot be justice, unless they are a part of the law enforcement, and subject to the same laws as, for instance, police officers. They cannot be allowed to be above the law. They may, as any citizen, aid the police in capturing and subduing dangerous people, who may even have superpowers, and may even, in self defense, end the life of the supervillains, but they cannot be primarily involved as a private citizen with justice. If a private citizen takes into their own hands the issue of justice, they become a vigilante, and are in danger of becoming a dictator when they have superpowers. They become a benevolent version of the ranting supervillain, because they presume to act outside of law and government. Compare, for instance, the difference of a superhero who chooses to rid the world of evil supervillains however he or she sees fit, punishing them however he or she thinks is appropriate, and a superhero who acts through the power of an elected official. If you elect a superhero as president, for instance, they operate within society. If a superhero acts as a private citizen to aid the law in capturing dangerous criminals, they operate within society. If a superhero acts within some branch of the military or law enforcement, they operate within society. But if a superhero acts as an individual in order to bring justice to criminals, they act outside of society, because they do not lawfully or justifiably hold that power. Superheros are somewhat different from the example of Sanctuary or Buffy, because generally in the world of superheros the existence of supervillains, monsters and so on is acknowledged, and there is at least some provision for dealing with them.
I think this is also related to Robin Hood, and why he is justified in stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It has to do with operating with a social and justice system as much as possible. But that is another post.
