Vigilantes vs. Heroes (analysis)
7 years ago
Here is a quick comparison of some of the differences between vigilantes and heroes, particularly in a fictional superhero setting but also in the action movie genre or even the fantasy genre, with some potential lessons about some of the important characteristics of criminal justice systems in real life:
Fictional vigilantes frequently operate alone or in very small groups and tend to take all functions of the criminal justice system into their own hands, from investigation of suspects to determination of guilt to determining and administering punishments. They rarely have legal authority from an elected government and they operate with few or no checks and balances. They also tend to function on the same threat level as their targets, so if they are pursuing a suspected murderer they’ll be willing to use deadly force themselves. Often they are personally emotionally involved in their activities, such as hunting down people who have harmed them in the past or are suspected of being threats to, or killing, their own loved ones. In fiction this can all seem justified and the authors can ensure that it is always justified, but in reality they would eventually kill someone who is in fact innocent or had extenuating circumstances, or their use of deadly force will result in injury or death to innocent bystanders.
In general, heroes will be involved only with law enforcement, the defense of the innocent, and the apprehension of suspects; heroes will not be involved with the rest of the criminal justice system like trials, determination of guilt, and deciding on punishment or administering punishments. Separation of these functions and ensuring that the trial portion of justice system requires the opinions of multiple impartial people to reach a determination (whether a jury or a panel of multiple judges) and offers the accused an opportunity to provide a defense are important hallmarks of a western-style democracy [don’t treat any of these things lightly, they are hard-won rights and are very important in order to be ‘good’]. For heroes, appropriate caution about the use of lethal force and avoiding collateral damage are important, and proportional responses should be at least one threat level below the force used against them, and preferably two or three levels different. Heroes may have a fanatical devotion to their ethics and cling to their ethics in the face of any level of threat (see Deontological ethics) but even those heroes that act more pragmatically (see other normative ethical theories, especially consequentialism) will tend to operate at least two or three threat levels away from their opponents regarding any ‘unethical’ behaviors they may use, so for instance pragmatically ethical heroes won’t manufacture evidence (level 0) against a non-violent swindler (level 0), but they might do a warrantless search* (level -1) against a suspected mass-murder (level 2) or a terrorist that is reasonably believed to have a WMD (level 4+). The best heroes will tend to be more mature in their moral development.
[*Note that the idea that a western-style criminal justice system would let someone who is a terrorist who is caught with a WMD ‘off the hook’ simply because the authorities did not have a search warrant or some other technicality is most likely just a fictional exaggeration, in reality the evidence would probably be allowed due to ‘exigency’ or that terrorist would be held on other charges for years or end up in an extra-legal place like Guantanamo for years, not just be released because of a technicality. The justice and political systems aren’t just toothless idiots that require vigilantes in order to set things straight and protect the populace, that’s more likely the manufactured fictional background for a story about vigilantes. Low threat suspects (level 0-1) may get off this way on technicalities (due to Blackstone's ratio) but that probably isn’t going to happen for really high threat suspects (level 3+) until the threat they pose to society is somehow mitigated.]
Batman tends to walk the line between hero and vigilante; and tends to remain on the hero side only due to not using lethal force and to not determining guilt or administering punishments himself but rather leaving that up to the actual criminal justice system.
By the way, this applies to fantasy settings as well, so a self-styled ‘paladin’ who goes around deciding who is 'evil', determines their guilt and administers punishment all by themselves is nothing more than a vigilante in shining armor. Fiction sometimes points this out in order to make ‘paladins’ or ‘lawful good’ somehow seem ominous and rather evil themselves (or at least overly judgemental and authoritarian) but that is generally caused by the failure of such ‘paladins’ to observe separation of powers, impartiality, getting multiple opinions, and allowing the accused to present a defense and explanation of any extenuating circumstances, all within a justice system rather than being determined by a lone individual. Often the concept of a ‘paladin’ is supported by a poor ethical design of the setting, for instance the existence of some sort of power or magic spell that can instantly determine the ‘goodness’ or ‘evilness’ in another person (don’t ask complicated ethical questions like whether that is based on the actual results of past actions, or on the intentions that were behind those past actions regardless of their actual results, or on thoughts that have not been acted upon, or on future intentions) and the assumption that those with the aura of ‘evilness’ about them deserve to be murdered.
I'm sure there are better and more thorough analyses out there, but these were a few thoughts that I decided to post.
Postscript (circa 2021): The general topic of this Journal was "justice" and it does not try to fully address the broader and more complex questions of whether the official law enforcement agents (the police) are honorable or corrupt, whether the courts are fair or corrupt, whether the laws themselves are fair, how laws are made, and what sort of government is in power, and political philosophy in general. Interestingly, philosophers have been struggling with the concept of "justice" since at least the time of Socrates and Plato (the 4th century BCE) and the meaning of "justice" was the subject of Plato's very famous dialogue Republic which required an entire book proposing a theoretical utopian society to attempt to explain Plato's vision of it.
Fictional vigilantes frequently operate alone or in very small groups and tend to take all functions of the criminal justice system into their own hands, from investigation of suspects to determination of guilt to determining and administering punishments. They rarely have legal authority from an elected government and they operate with few or no checks and balances. They also tend to function on the same threat level as their targets, so if they are pursuing a suspected murderer they’ll be willing to use deadly force themselves. Often they are personally emotionally involved in their activities, such as hunting down people who have harmed them in the past or are suspected of being threats to, or killing, their own loved ones. In fiction this can all seem justified and the authors can ensure that it is always justified, but in reality they would eventually kill someone who is in fact innocent or had extenuating circumstances, or their use of deadly force will result in injury or death to innocent bystanders.
In general, heroes will be involved only with law enforcement, the defense of the innocent, and the apprehension of suspects; heroes will not be involved with the rest of the criminal justice system like trials, determination of guilt, and deciding on punishment or administering punishments. Separation of these functions and ensuring that the trial portion of justice system requires the opinions of multiple impartial people to reach a determination (whether a jury or a panel of multiple judges) and offers the accused an opportunity to provide a defense are important hallmarks of a western-style democracy [don’t treat any of these things lightly, they are hard-won rights and are very important in order to be ‘good’]. For heroes, appropriate caution about the use of lethal force and avoiding collateral damage are important, and proportional responses should be at least one threat level below the force used against them, and preferably two or three levels different. Heroes may have a fanatical devotion to their ethics and cling to their ethics in the face of any level of threat (see Deontological ethics) but even those heroes that act more pragmatically (see other normative ethical theories, especially consequentialism) will tend to operate at least two or three threat levels away from their opponents regarding any ‘unethical’ behaviors they may use, so for instance pragmatically ethical heroes won’t manufacture evidence (level 0) against a non-violent swindler (level 0), but they might do a warrantless search* (level -1) against a suspected mass-murder (level 2) or a terrorist that is reasonably believed to have a WMD (level 4+). The best heroes will tend to be more mature in their moral development.
[*Note that the idea that a western-style criminal justice system would let someone who is a terrorist who is caught with a WMD ‘off the hook’ simply because the authorities did not have a search warrant or some other technicality is most likely just a fictional exaggeration, in reality the evidence would probably be allowed due to ‘exigency’ or that terrorist would be held on other charges for years or end up in an extra-legal place like Guantanamo for years, not just be released because of a technicality. The justice and political systems aren’t just toothless idiots that require vigilantes in order to set things straight and protect the populace, that’s more likely the manufactured fictional background for a story about vigilantes. Low threat suspects (level 0-1) may get off this way on technicalities (due to Blackstone's ratio) but that probably isn’t going to happen for really high threat suspects (level 3+) until the threat they pose to society is somehow mitigated.]
Batman tends to walk the line between hero and vigilante; and tends to remain on the hero side only due to not using lethal force and to not determining guilt or administering punishments himself but rather leaving that up to the actual criminal justice system.
By the way, this applies to fantasy settings as well, so a self-styled ‘paladin’ who goes around deciding who is 'evil', determines their guilt and administers punishment all by themselves is nothing more than a vigilante in shining armor. Fiction sometimes points this out in order to make ‘paladins’ or ‘lawful good’ somehow seem ominous and rather evil themselves (or at least overly judgemental and authoritarian) but that is generally caused by the failure of such ‘paladins’ to observe separation of powers, impartiality, getting multiple opinions, and allowing the accused to present a defense and explanation of any extenuating circumstances, all within a justice system rather than being determined by a lone individual. Often the concept of a ‘paladin’ is supported by a poor ethical design of the setting, for instance the existence of some sort of power or magic spell that can instantly determine the ‘goodness’ or ‘evilness’ in another person (don’t ask complicated ethical questions like whether that is based on the actual results of past actions, or on the intentions that were behind those past actions regardless of their actual results, or on thoughts that have not been acted upon, or on future intentions) and the assumption that those with the aura of ‘evilness’ about them deserve to be murdered.
I'm sure there are better and more thorough analyses out there, but these were a few thoughts that I decided to post.
Postscript (circa 2021): The general topic of this Journal was "justice" and it does not try to fully address the broader and more complex questions of whether the official law enforcement agents (the police) are honorable or corrupt, whether the courts are fair or corrupt, whether the laws themselves are fair, how laws are made, and what sort of government is in power, and political philosophy in general. Interestingly, philosophers have been struggling with the concept of "justice" since at least the time of Socrates and Plato (the 4th century BCE) and the meaning of "justice" was the subject of Plato's very famous dialogue Republic which required an entire book proposing a theoretical utopian society to attempt to explain Plato's vision of it.
Merch Store