Vigilantes: Batman Begins - Star Chamber

[Link83]

Hello All,

Should we take the law into our own hands when we see injustice happening? Should we trust the system? Or will we as vigilantes gradually slip into the same errors that the current system is making anyway?


So I sat down in front of the Idiot Box last night (well, really the Idiot Panel nowadays) and decided to have a night of doing nothing (haven't done that for a while). So I watched two movies, Batman Begins and Star Chamber.

I highly recommend that combination of movies, as I didn't realise what it would do for me until afterwards.

So we all love Batman, because he does "what is just" for us and saves us from the corruption of our democratic system (lucky he has all that technology eh?)

But then again, Star Chamber shows us what can happen when vigilantes decide to take the law into their own hands. Will it always stay on track, or will it slip into satisfying the unconcious hate that the vigilantes might end up expressing onto their unknowing victims?

So thoughts?

 

[Mary Anne PA]

Hello All,

Should we take the law into our own hands when we see injustice happening? Should we trust the system? Or will we as vigilantes gradually slip into the same errors that the current system is making anyway?


So I sat down in front of the Idiot Box last night (well, really the Idiot Panel nowadays) and decided to have a night of doing nothing (haven't done that for a while). So I watched two movies, Batman Begins and Star Chamber.

I highly recommend that combination of movies, as I didn't realise what it would do for me until afterwards.

So we all love Batman, because he does "what is just" for us and saves us from the corruption of our democratic system (lucky he has all that technology eh?)

But then again, Star Chamber shows us what can happen when vigilantes decide to take the law into their own hands. Will it always stay on track, or will it slip into satisfying the unconcious hate that the vigilantes might end up expressing onto their unknowing victims?

So thoughts?

I think that society should be able to trust in the 'protectors' and in an Utopian world that would be the case. Unfortunately it is often felt that justice is not done, and people will aim to fix this. We ideally should be able to trust in the processes of law, but that isnt the case.

On a small scale take the example of a homeowner who attacks a burglar, on THEIR property who is stealing THEIR possessions. There is little chance that the authorities will catch and punish these criminals, and in the heat of the moment instinct IS to stop these criminals. (I was robbed last year and tried my best to catch the bastards, though what I would have done if I HAD caught them, who knows. In fact in hindsight ME chasing 4 BIG guys all taller and strong than me was a bit stupid)

And many people have commented if anyone ever hurt their children they would do unspeakable things with the persons private parts, after removing these parts with blunt objects.

There is a fine line between justice and loss of freedoms, personally I believe that we need stricter laws and punishments, but I would object to being arrested for owning x rated non violent erotica (which is illegal through most of the country)

 

[svengali]

Ah, the vigilante posse, a Svengali favourite.

Our society depends on a social contact which lets us pool our skills and knowledge to work together for the common good. A cornerstone of that co-operation is the rule of law whereby we delegate the job of dealing with wrongdoers to the police and the justice system. Inevitably, there are failures, we are only human after all, and whenever people feel threatened or feel let down by the system the temptation is there to take the law into our own hands.

Sir Winston Churchill once said "democracy is the worst form of government...apart from everything else"

You can extend that thought to the justice system.

Is it perfect NO

O.K, than, what shall we replace it with?

Do we have a Texas style lynching when people like Dante Arthurs commit their crimes?

Do we deal with the packs of louts who roam the streets by forming packs of our own and "patrolling" our "turf" armed with baseball bats?

Do we demand the American "right to bear arms" and all walk around with firearms hanging from our belts?

It is easy to point to the flaws in the existing system but much harder to come up with a workable alternative. To paraphrase Sir Winston, it is the worst system possible, apart from everything else.

 

[Link83]

Svengali, a nicely put summary!
So if Winston is correct, as you seem to point out, then should we accept Batman? Or the Star-Chamber? Afterall, Batman acts outside of all the protections of the full legal system. Chase hard, and if anyone is killed on the side, then so-be-it what does it matter! Everything is acceptable in the pursuit of justice! Right? (I think you are arguing NOT; do I have that right?)

 

[svengali]

Hi Link.

I guess my attitude is a heavily qualified yes.

Every citizen who lives under the protection of the law has an obligation to uphold it but only if this can be done without crossing the line into assault or without undue personal risk.

Example: If burglars break into my home while I am there or muggers try their luck on me in the street I believe I am entitled to use whatever means I have to defend myself, including employing any weapons which happen to be handy. Likewise, if I see someone being physically assaulted common decency demands that I intervene (or try to).

In the absence of any direct physical threat to me or anyone else my correct course on seeing a crime being committed would be to call the police. Intervening and getting physical with the baddies in the absence of such a threat could land me in legal strife.

Given that, yes, Batman is a vigilante and, in real life, would need a team of very good lawyers to keep him out of the clink. If he was called on to testify in court after one of his "arrests" he may also find the judge less than enthusiastic about his appearing in a mask. In this state he may also have trouble getting the Batmobile licensed!

I saw "Star Chamber" and it was a good example of what can happen when people, however well-meaning they may be, try and "improve" on the rule of law. In the end, by placing themselves above the law the judges making up the "chamber" proved to be no better than the criminals they were trying to eliminate.

 

[Link83]

Thanks Svengali, I laughed at your image of Batman in court, "state your name, and address please..."

I am actually heading somewhere with this, as you might see in a minute.

So picture another sort of vigilante.

A medical doctor is convinced that she has come up with a far superior treatment for cancer. Several people close to her have cancer. She knows that by the time she has to conduct all the nescessary trials to verify the drug, that her friends will probably be dead. So she takes it into her own hands to administer the drug. However, she doesn't tell them, because if one of them were to spill the beans, all the other friends/patients will also suffer in missing out. So she does what she thinks is best, and secretly administers this drug to quite a few people. So once a week when her friends come to see her in her capacity as a doctor, she gives each of them a shot in the arse of this new wonder drug. She knows best, she is highly qualified, and one of the most eminent practitioners in her field.

Is this ethical?

 

[Link83]

But she has good theoretical evidence predicting that it will work. The trials appear to the doctor to be just a rubber stamping exercise. She has done this sort of thing countless times before. Of course it will work!!

 

[Link83]

Oh yeah she has cured cancer before many times. She has seen thousands of patients. And quite often, one will go into complete remission. She has administered a particular type of drug that time and that person seems cured. So it must have been the drug she gave!

 

[Link83]

She had used other drugs before, but this drug that she is now using is far superior in the lab. You know, like Batman's lab where they build all that technology, but in this case, when the put this new drug in the testube it kills the cancerous sells 10 times more efficiently than other drugs. The people she wants to use it on have rather aggressive tumours, so she wants to use it on them. So why wait for the drug trials and a ten year delay? These people need it, and they need it now!!

 

[Link83]

But the cancer will kill them anyway--so what is there to lose?

 

[Link83]

Thanks Mac, of course, you are correct!

If it goes belly up the doctor is completely liable. There is no fall back onto her professional standards or associations. There is no safety net. In short, if anything goes wrong, it is her neck, and anyone else that was in on it as well.

 

[I LUV a Rub]

The first think you have to understand is the motivation of the vigilante.

The vigilante is not motivated by any sense of "justice", concern for victims etc., although he will nearly always delude himself into believeing that these are his real motivations. He or she is actually motivated by sub-conscious (or in rarer cases conscious) rage that they can only express violently when they feel society has given them illusion of moral justification to do so.

The vigilante is actually simply acting out his anger and rage that was reflected onto him by society. Society, knowing that some individuals are so pent-up over THIER OWN injustices, will seek to violently assault others. This will vent thier cathartic rage, and they wil feel better as they return to/closer to emotional homeostatis.
Society therefore has devised a "damage control" plan for these citizens. Society demonised the so-called "criminals", thereby planting the suggestion in the vigilantes mind that these ofteh complete strangers are thier approprite target. Of course, societal leaders are never the appropriate target. How convient for them.

The next, and most significant problem, is that the law has no legitimate basis in Truth and reason. All laws violate all the philosophical principals of knowledge and reason, including basic human reasoning systems, but use cunning and clever psychological trickery to trick the citizens.

The criminal is not the enemy of the citizen, and vice verse. Society and the leadership is. That is why society is so keen to blame individuals. The idea that the law is "right" or "moral" is completely false. The law has no legitimacy.

Although I do not go into detail about this issue (at least yet), can I ask you to presume I am correct (as indeed I am). If the law has no legitimacy, then what is the point of going out of your way and even placing yourself in danger enforcing it?

 

[ed44au]

We vote for the politicians who make our laws. Many flaws in that system but the biggest is our apathy. No way around that. We need to care about our laws.

News coverage is another problem. We need great investigative journos to open up corruptive practices in our public administrators and keep the bastards honest. We don't get that very often. Instead, we get a jaundiced view of outcomes of criminal cases that makes us want to lynch those who got off so lightly. Emotional responses buy lurid newspapers and make us watch tv news programs with biased coverage.

We are not going to change. Just look at the sensationalised mags at the supermarket checkouts. All designed to tickle our emotions.

At least in Melbourne we don't prosecute the working girls and we live and let live! Now if only I could get underbelly off the air . . . . . :walk:

 

[I LUV a Rub]

We vote for the politicians who make our laws. Many flaws in that system but the biggest is our apathy. No way around that. We need to care about our laws.
The law has no legitimacy and is based on insane, irrational and malevolent systems of control and oppression.

News coverage is another problem. We need great investigative journos to open up corruptive practices in our public administrators and keep the bastards honest. We don't get that very often. Instead, we get a jaundiced view of outcomes of criminal cases that makes us want to lynch those who got off so lightly. Emotional responses buy lurid newspapers and make us watch tv news programs with biased coverage.
Yes, emotion plays a big role. WHY? because the law is irrational and illegitimate, so social leaders realise that they must keep views on legal matters confined to
A) The law says so and so that should be good enough (dont Q the law)
B) Emotional responses
C) False and irrational logic


We are not going to change.
The problem is being malevolently made worse by societal leaders.

Just look at the sensationalised mags at the supermarket checkouts. All designed to tickle our emotions.
The major problem is not emotion. It is that 99.99999% of all humans are literally mentally unhinged and illogical.

At least in Melbourne we don't prosecute the working girls and we live and let live! Now if only I could get underbelly off the air . . . . . :walk:
Yet they prosecute the punters.

 

[Link83]

Where's Batman? As of tomorrow I'm all yours dark man in a cape!

 

[Bluegrass9]

I learnt martial arts and I was told, "If you are in fear of your life you can do damage to the other person." Of course it also states "Only minimum force should be used."

However if a person attacks me with a knife, my first reaction would be put them out of action as soon as I could.


I admit taking the law in your own hands is dangerous because once you start the ball rolling you never know where it will roll. It can roll right over you.
:walk:

 

[svengali]

Yes, I was also a martial artist until just a few years ago when age and injury forced me to call a halt to it.

One thing I learned in the dojo was a respect for the dangers of violence. However well controlled and strong you may be the results can be lethal. Suppose you apply a simple throw. If the throwee is not properly trained and doesn't break his fall he can land on his head and break his neck. Likewise, a single punch can kill - there have been enough instances of this in the press recently.

If I was confronted by a loudmouth I would take any insults he threw my way and walk away from him. No way is that worth the risk.

Force should always be a last resort but, like you, if I was confronted by someone with a knife I would not be defending myself. I would attack as soon as I saw it with everything I had at my disposal and if the knife wielder got hurt too bad. He was the one who opted for the law of the jungle.

Hopefully, it will never come to that.

 

[Bluegrass9]

It is said: A good martial artist can fight, a very good martial artist can stop a fight but an excellent martial artist is one who does not have to fight.
:walk:

 

[NeilAlden]

What great advice. I studied and practised Jujitsu at a dojo of one of the great masters many many years ago. I didn't get as far as a black belt (I had a career that had a disruptive schedule and didn't give me the opportunity to continue). But I certainly picked up a lot of good advice. The one thing that the Sensei said over and over was, "One day you may need to use what you have learned should you find yourself being threatened in a dark dead-end alley with no escape. But before you enter such a place, ask yourself, 'why am I venturing into a dark dead-end alley?' and turn away before the fight even starts"

 

[johnlou]

What great advice. I studied and practised Jujitsu at a dojo of one of the great masters many many years ago. I didn't get as far as a black belt (I had a career that had a disruptive schedule and didn't give me the opportunity to continue). But I certainly picked up a lot of good advice. The one thing that the Sensei said over and over was, "One day you may need to use what you have learned should you find yourself being threatened in a dark dead-end alley with no escape. But before you enter such a place, ask yourself, 'why am I venturing into a dark dead-end alley?' and turn away before the fight even starts"

NeilAlden , so true them words from your Sensei as my Sensei said the same for as long as i trained with him .

and since then i never put myself in harms way , unless a less fortunate person is in harms way , no matter where i am even @ work

John

 

[svengali]

Yes!! very true.

Our sensei always said that the most important lesson we could learn was awareness. You don't have to creep around with fists clenched and head swivelling but just be aware of what is happening around you.

Is that loud group of young men a threat or are they just larking around and having fun?

In a bar or other crowded entertainment place keep a "feel" for the vibe of the crowd. If the hairs start prickling on the back of your neck get the hell out before things get ugly.

As an extension of this thought never, never,never get so drunk that you can't look after yourself.

That dude in the hoodie is watching me, why?

Approaching the car in the carpark? Have the keys ready and get in quickly with no fumbling and park under a light or near the exit if possible.

Just a lot of little habits which reduce the risk of getting in strife.

 

[Bluegrass9]

I do not like to drink when I go out because I need to be in control of my mind and body.
:walk: