Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

Law, like vigilanteism, is subject to SOME human's judgement.

---

Some, sure. But in a system of laws, we have so many more people using their judgement. The evidence and law are reviewed, rereviewed, and reviewed again. A police officer followed by a detective, collecting evidence. A Crime Scene Investigator, a Coroner, a district attorney, a grand jury, a judge, a jury, a group of appellant judges, another group of appealant judges, and possible ANOTHER group of judges, this time 'supreme'.

Or in the case of a vigilante, just one guy of no particular experience or expertise in the case, the evidence, or the law.

I'm arguing that you're far far more likely to get a consistent level of justice and application of law with a system of redundant experts and professionals, each watching each other, each held to the same standards....than you are with the subjective judgment of just one guy of no experience or expertise, with no review and no standards.

Quote:

---

nd history shows, that those who are elected, appointed etc show no better judgement than those who self elect themselves, in fact, show worse judgement than individuals over the long run.

---

I disagree. While there is corruption in either system, the issue is degree. In a system of law, the objective standards, review of evidence and process, and redundancy inherent in the system mean that power is spread among dozens if not hundreds of individuals in each case. Each group reviews the other, maintaining a relatively consistent standard.

Further, those individuals involved in the system are seasoned professionals, with experience that allows them to intepret evidence with far greater accuracy than a layman. A coroner and a carpenter are not peers in determining cause of death. A judge and a janitor are not peers in determining if a particular law or legal standard is being met.

In the case of a vigilante, we have one individual of no particular expertise in collecting or interpreting evidence acting as judge, jury and executioner. Further, they have no objective standards. Some might follow the 'constitution' (or their interpretation of it). Others their own moral authority. Some may have no subjective standards, being driven by impulse and emotion. There is no review, no redundancy, no standards and no proportion. A simple infraction like Jaywalking might result in a beating in the vigilante system. While an objectively appropriate standard would more likely prevail in a system of law.

While individuals in a system of law can certainly fall victim to the same faults listed above in vigilantism, the hundreds of people involved in any given case, the redundancy, review and generally agreed upon objective standards will more likely mitigate and compensate for those flaws.

Quote:

---

And it supports my point, and in fact, proves my point. The 10th amendment is clear that powers not given to government do not exist, and again, since it is not specifically renumerated in the constitution, it cannot exist.

---

Would not the tenth amendment then establish the right to choice of the use of your body? The right to privacy? You can't have it both ways. Your interpretation cannot simultaneously 'create' an unenumerated right while at the same time forbidding other 'unenumerated' rights. Either both are valid, or neither are.

You're straddling the fence, claiming that those unenumerated rights that you AGREE with are valid, but those you disagree with are not. Logically, this is not a consistent standard. Legally, the authority to adjudicate such issues are within the power of the judiciary, just as the legislative branch has the power to legislate for the 'general welfare'. The federal judiciary and the congress don't have power only when you agree with them. Their authority remains intact per the constitution....not simply your interpretation of it.

This is the same argument, just repackaged slightly. Vigilantism is subjective, where legality is determined by one man. You claim that your interpretation of the constitution is legally authoritative, despite the constitution itself enumerating the authority to adjudicate issues of constitutional significance to the judiciary. The constitution is a rule book of standard and processes. It objectively grants a single body the authority to adjudicate. And its not you. Thus, to claim that your interpretation is legally binding, you must ignore the standard you give lip service to upholding.

Which is all too often, the outcome of vigilantism.

Quote:

---

In Iraq, when a firefight breaks out, just like I experienced in nam, I was forced to "judge for myself". There was/is no trial, there is no evidence. If I percieved that someone was firing at me, I fired back. I was judge, jury and executioner, just as those trying to eliminate me

---

The obvious flaw in this theory is....you're not in Iraq. Nor are we speaking of a war zone. Thus to equate the two renders your argument irrelevant.

Quote:

---

So why does it matter if I self appoint myself or someone else appoints someone else who has no better human qualification than me? I trust me, I KNOW me.

---

It matters because WE don't trust you. We don't know you. You have no objective standards that guide you. You don't carry the power of the 'people'. The people do. And through their authority, they elect those imbued with their power. You may disagree with that assessment, but the processes laid out in the constitution have been followed. You can't wipe your arse with the constitution in a subjective attempt to 'save it'...and have even a semblance of consistency or moral authority.

The constitution applies to you too, friend. Even when you disagree with it or its processes.

Quote:

---

That is the problems with law, it can be selectively enforced and applied.

---

It can be. But with its system of review, objective standards of evidence, experienced professionals at each stage of the process, and power being spread among hundreds of individuals per case, its far MORE likely to be applied objectively.

Vigilantism is always selective and subjective. If selectivity is 'a problem' than surely you recognize the flaw in a solution that is nothing BUT selectivity and subjective application of the law. There is no review, no safeguards of evidence, chains of custody, interview, juries, proper application of the law, constitutionality, protections, rights, appeal or proportionally punishment.

A vigilante is a judge, jury and executioner. It begins and ends with him. Making the process (or more specifically the lack of process) far more likely to result in the 'problem' you recognize.