Judicial justice or vigilante justice - you decide.

The criminal justice system doesn’t always gets things right, and wouldn’t even if all those running it were honest and fair and sometimes it seems few of them are, but the alternative is far worse. Vigilante justice in which the citizens and police officers acts as judge, jury and executioner without given the accused a day in court is dangerous to all of society. You are foolish if you think because you are a law abiding citizens it has nothing to do with you. Road rage is vigilante justice! Today vigilante justice may seem justified by many in society when it comes to drugs, child abuse, elderly abuse, pedophiles and rape, but who is to say vigilante justice will stop with just those illegal acts.

If you think everyone ever accused of a crime is guilty I again say you are foolish. Innocent people can be targeted. Lisa-Jayne Samuels was given a 20 month sentence for making a false rape allegation against Terry Brown. Lisa-Jayne Samuels was a serial rape liar, but initially the police took her claim seriously. Mr. Brown was attacked by a vigilante mob who stabbed him. Even worse, his pregnant fiancée tripped and fell during a confrontation and suffered a miscarriage. The man was innocent and eventually Lisa-Jayne Samuels was charged for filing false charges and convicted.

American vigilantism originally came about as a frontier response to the threat and reality of crime. The first settlers who moved to the Deep South and the Old West were not protected by a criminal justice system. There were no law enforcement agencies, no regularly scheduled court sessions, no nearby jails or prisons, and there was a vast open spaces to which offenders could escape from their victims. In the absence of any legal system victims and their allies felt compelled to track down and round up outlaws and "take the law into their own hands.”  That is not the case today.

People claim that the justice system today is only for the wealthy. Those people who claim that and support vigilantism need to study history and see who the vigilantes punished and even killed. They did not go after the wealthy they went after the lower class people and marginalized people.  

Vigilantism usually is the results of the government not doing its job and the citizens becoming frustrated. Instead of correcting the problems in government it is easier for some in society to go after the one they deem the ‘criminal’. Anyone and I mean anyone who supports vigilantism is breaking the law.

To legitimize their lawless deeds, vigilantes argued that their ends justified their means. They claim they are trying to preserve traditions, enforce moral codes, and further respect for authority. Their biggest claim is that they are trying to protect law-abiding citizens from internal and external evil forces.

More concerned with suppressing disruptive behavior than with respecting due process some elected officials approve of vigilantism.  It is simple, direct, swift, certain and those that are looking for a so called quick fix will support vigilantism. They will turn a blind eye to all the evils of vigilantism.

The Ku Klux Klan in the United States was a vigilante group. Originally they went after husbands that were abusive or neglecting their families, but they then started going after Black people, Jews, Catholics and those that were said not to have paid a debt.  Black Life’s Matter Organization in the United States is a vigilante group.

If you support vigilantism then why do you not support revenge killings, drive-by shootings, turf battles between rival drug-selling groups, and mob hits among warring syndicates. These are all a type of vigilantism. Teenagers act as vigilantes when they attack homeless vagrants and drive them away or set them on fire. Police Officers themselves engage in police vigilantism if they beat a suspect on the street, during the ride to the police station, or in its basement, in order to make sure the perpetrator is punished before being released with a mere "slap on the wrist" by the "revolving door" of an lenient justice system. When society ignores vigilantism police officers feel more empowered to carry out their street justice (vigilantism).

 Some in The right-to-life movement—convinced that abortion constitutes murder—assassinated doctors who legally terminated pregnancies or bombed the clinics where these medical procedures are performed (vigilantism). White supremacist Neo-Nazi groups randomly attacked complete strangers because of their race or religion because they are seeking vigilante justice. Militia groups are vigilantes. They set up their own "common law courts."

Support any type of vigilantism and I will venture to say one day it will come back to haunt you. You will find yourself on the other side of the fence and then you will oppose curb justice or vigilantism.  When you have a government that is endorsing vigilantism there is nothing that will stop it and while you fight drug addicts and pusher today in a few years you will be fighting vigilantes. This should be of grave concern for those that feared the regime of Marcos in the Philippines.

The Philippines in 1915 earned the dubious distinction of having the worst record of 87 countries in bringing wrongdoers to justice, according to a study of countries plagued by impunity. Is this the drug pusher or drug addicts fault? I do not think corruption in the Philippines is the cause of impunity, but it is the results of impunity. If you believe you are not going to be caught or punished for a crime you are more likely to commit a crime. Yes, corruption contributes to impunity, but it is not the cause. A failed justice system is the root cause of impunity. I believe  countries that do not provide opportunities for economic development also fail to reduce the unequal access to security and justice for their citizens.

Most courts in the Philippines have over one thousand cases on their dockets – an impossible task. Is that the fault of drug users and drug pushers? The Justice Department claims there are not enough courts. Is that the fault of drug users and drug pushers? A lot of the courts that are established do not have judges to staff them. Is that the drug users and drug pushers fault? judges appointed to cases take longer than the time limitation of three months fixed by the Constitution for them to decide a case some cases go on for years. Is that the drug user or drug pushers fault? Do the cases move at a snail pace because there are no jury system in the Philippines and all cases are decided by a judge? If that is the case is that the fault of a drug user or drug pusher?  Maybe vigilantism looks good now, but will it really solve the problems that plagues Philippine justice?   I do not think so.

As of August 3, 2016 Police figures show that 402 drug SUSPECTS have been killed since the end of June. That figure does not include those slain by suspected vigilantes. Two hundred eleven more men are known to have been killed by vigilantes. These being killed are not rich people they are the poor in Philippine society. They are not the wealthy Drug Lords - many of them are a part of government. 565,805 have turned themselves in and promised to straighten out their lives and released. Drug addiction is not something you can cure with a promise and the Philippine government does not have the facilities or the funds to provide rehabilitation for these men. What has happen when these men turned themselves in they put a target on their backs to be killed by vigilantes.

Innocent until proven guilty - justice – equal treatment for all - moral legitimacy are the rights guaranteed to the people living under a democratic government and without those rights they might as well be living under a dictator or monarch.  Freedom is a slippery hill to climb and when you start sliding backwards you do not usually stop until you have lost all your freedom. 

Summary killings are a crime regardess of who does it.

A free society regardless if it is a Federalist or Democratic cannot allow elected officials or their agents to perpetuate violence upon people they suspect of committing a crime. If we do we eventually will have to look over our shoulders to see if we are being watched. Politicians are eager to capitalize on our fears.

It is becoming more common for police and elected officials to see themselves as judge and jury dispensing inappropriate summary justice on the streets. It is also becoming more common for citizens to look the other way because they fear crime taking over their community. The Constitution does not allow those who are there to enforce the law to be put in the position of becoming judge and jury.

Politicians are supposed to make the laws, police officers are supposed to enforce the laws and the judiciary is supposed to determine what happens when evidence is presented to them of lawbreaking. This separation has become blurred over the last few years as more and more politicians are winning elections playing on the fears of the citizens, but citizens need to understand we will eventually lose our freedom if we allow this to continue. Americans or citizens of any country must never sacrifice their liberty for false security.

Politicians will claim that the reason they act as they do is because the judicial system is flawed and criminals are not being convicted. That is not justification to ignore the constitution and laws. Politicians should be taking action to reform the judicial system not become judge, jury and executor of suspected criminals. When politicians and police become judge, jury and executor they also become criminals.

I am not sure killing drug dealers without giving them an opportunity to have their day in court or offering any rehabilitation programs or adequate rehabilitation programs is a humane process. This subject is very personal to me and I realize my views may be influenced by personal family experiences. My brother who died in 2004 of cancer in the ninth grade started smoking marijuana. He did use and sell marijuana to friends to supply his needs. He could have been a victim of summary street justice. He was fortunate that he received a trial and spent time in prison. He got out opened a business and became quite successful, married and raised a family. I just do not think any elected official or police officer would have been justified of robbing him of his life.

I do not accept the end justifies the means. I do not accept short cutting the legal procedure as a valid solution to crime. I do accept and whole heartily believe those involved in summary killing are criminals themselves and should be tried in the judicial system they flaunt. Their sentence should be severe since they are suppose to be role models for regular citizens.  

I realize a lot of citizens disagree with me.

We know that some who have been sentence to death for crimes were eventually found to be innocent. Mistakes are made even when the accused is given a 'fair' trial. How many suspected criminals killed by summary killers were innocent and they were denied a 'fair' trial.

What is the difference in Martial Law and summary killings? Both deny suspects of their international human rights. Politicians involved in or who encourage summary killing cannot guarantee laws will apply equally to all.

A society that does not demand that their police officers who shoot without legal justification face conviction are condoning summary killing. A policeman recently shot a young man in Chicago 16 times killing him. The young man is said to have had a knife in each hand while walking down the street. It took one year before the Chicago elected officials brought charges against the policeman and they only did so after pressure from the black community was put on them. How can any society justify 16 shots by one policeman in one victim?

The 6th Amendment states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…” The right to a jury trial was designed by our founders to be a fundamental right bestowed upon our citizens and a means to keep the government under control of the people.

When a defendant exercises his right to a jury trial, it is the jury of his peers that decides whether the defendant is guilty or not. In these circumstances a great deal of control is relinquished by the government and put into the hands of the citizens.

The right to trial by jury takes the control of the outcome of a criminal case away from the government and gives it to the citizens. This right, though it has its limitations, is essential in maintaining liberty and imposing restraint on the government.

Let us not forget the summary killings in the South perpetrated by the KKK. The membership of KKK consisted of a lot of Southern policemen and politicians. They were self-appointed vigilantes who regarded themselves as both outside and above the law when they perpetrated their crimes. Do we want to return to those days?

The KKK did largely bring their barbaric justice to the black communities in the south, but blacks were not the only ones lynched by the KKK. They lynched Jews, foreigners, rapist (black or white), northerners, wife beaters (black and white), Catholics, homosexuals, communists and thief’s (black and white). I am sure today drug dealers and drug users would be their victims. They were white men, consisting of a lot of politicians, that thought they knew best how to deal with society’s problems. Their illegal actions were accepted by the citizens out of fear of the blacks which then became fear of any and all suspected law breakers or people they disagreed with in general.

At an early age I was introduced to public officials acting as judge, jury and executors. I was twelve and went to spend the summer with relatives in Alabama. My cousin by marriage was the sheriff. One Saturday night his son and I were allowed to ride with him in the patrol car.  He arrested a young black man for “standing” on the corner in the downtown area at night. He put the young man in the back of his patrol car under the pretense of carrying him to jail.

On the way to the jail we stopped for coffee at the local café. He opened the back door of the patrol car and he told the Blackman to stay in the car while he drank coffee. The car door was left opened.  I kept watching the man from the café window and later I realized my cousin was watching to. I finally had the courage to ask what if he gets out of the car and runs away. His reply came with a hardy laugh, “I hope the ‘nigger’ is that stupid then I will shoot him and we do not have to take him to jail.” The young man was smart enough not to run and he was turned lose in the café parking lot. A few years later he was returning for the summer from college in Tuskegee and got off the bus on the highway and was taken by the KKK and lynched.  That is what they did to 'uppity niggers' that went to college. I have never forgotten that and have since had a real distaste for injustice regardless of who inflicts it - bullies, police officer, politicians, judges, religious leaders or citizens.