HELP ENGLISH AAA

introduction

Ladies and gentlemen, imagine watching someone take the life of an innocent person and just walk away, no punishment, no consequences. Would you really believe justice has been served? My question is “if the law fails to protect people, is it ever okay for a regular citizen to step in?” I’m here to argue that, in some cases, vigilantism, in this case murdering a murderer, can actually be morally and ethically justifiable because when the system we trust fails us, sometimes doing the right thing means acting outside the law and taking charge of a problem that would otherwise be discarded.

Para 1

Vigilantism is basically when someone takes the law into their own hands without legal authority, usually because they feel justice hasn’t been done (“Vigilantism,” LII). It doesn’t come from anger or hatered, it comes from moral outrage and the desire to protect innocent people (Johnston) and when faith is lost in the justice system, it’s natural for them to want to take action themselves (Tonry). This isn’t just a hypothetical problem either: in the U.S the national murder “clearance” rate dropped to just under 50% in 2020, which is a historic low, and in some cities like Chicago, only about a third of murder cases even lead to arrests (Westervelt). When killers go free, communities start to distrust the authorities, which just makes the problem worse. In situations like that, morally conscious people feel the need to step in for themselves and their community(Dumsday; Robinson). 

Para 2

From a moral perspective, vigilantes act because protecting their community is the right thing to do. People often understand and even sympathize with vigilante actions, seeing them as a way to defend innocents or bring back justice (Wood & Lee). A prime example of this can be seen in the show Dexter, where our main character is in fact a serial killer basing his kills off of the principals of vigilantism, only targeting those who are proven guilty, even if that means he breaks into some random guys house to double check. Since Dexter follows that code viewers often understand and justify his kills because in their eyes, he’s just getting rid of the scum of the earth. In fact, research shows that many vigilantes act because their neighborhoods feel unsafe, so stepping in feels like a moral duty (Van Damme & Pauwels) and also makes for a heroic act towards your community, unintentionally making the vigilante feel better about themselves, and who wouldn’t want to be feel better about themselves

Para 2 part 2

According to the source “Vigilantism in moral philosophy”, there are four conditions that make vigilantism morally justifiable: the system has failed, innocents are in danger, the punishment is proportional, and the person acting genuinely wants justice. When a murderer goes free, the first two are obvious, and the other two make sure the action is reasonable and not just about revenge (Ahmad). Following this code stops the vigilante act from becoming reckless or endangering which is good for both the vigilante and in this case the murderer, because who would want to be tracked down and killed by a fellow murderer for no reason, that’s just ridiculous and if I had to be honest a waste of blood. In these cases, killing a murderer aligns with protecting life and keeping the community safe. 

Para 3

Ethically, vigilantes can also be justified. A murderer may lose the moral right to avoid harm, especially if letting them live puts others at risk (Siegel). Ethical vigilantism isn’t about acting out of anger, it’s about rational thinking when the state can’t do it themselves (Lee). Even if the law doesn’t allow it, vigilantes can be morally justified when justice fails entire communities (Robinson). Basically, if the system can’t act, the ethical responsibility falls on capable individuals to restore justice, stop further harm, and keep people safe. Think of it like stepping in to stop someone from walking into traffic, you can’t just stand there and watch unless you some sick freak. Of course, vigilantes have to be careful as well because if they act on rumors or guesswork, it’s reckless and immoral (Walters). That’s why certainty and careful judgment are crucial. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, killing a murderer as a form of vigilantism can be both morally and ethically justifiable if following conditions are met: the system has failed, innocent people are at risk, punishment is proportional, and there’s a genuine desire for justice. Morally, it answers our human need for justice and protection and ethically, it restores balance when the law can’t. Sometimes, doing the right thing means stepping up ourselves and while I don’t recommend starting your own vigilante club after this speech, the truth is, true justice doesn’t always wait for the law, it starts with us.