I would generally say that it's unfortunate that good, decent people, through no fault of their own, have to find themselves in intense situations, where they end up perhaps going too far. All circumstances should certainly be considered when deciding whether someone did indeed go too far, but there's no question that this was no longer an issue of protecting his family or possessions, or even a case of a citizens arrest, it was simply revenge.
Perhaps not reasonable, but it could be considered mitigating circumstances, which might be considered in the sentencing.
It's a different situation, though, since nobody had actually been harmed in the original case we were discussing. However, given your unpleasant example, I would think it's a question of weighing things up and deciding if the situation really warrants you breaking the law, and if you're prepared to face the consequences. Cases of such extreme vigilantism are rare, though, and most people look to the justice system to deal with the perpetrators. If someone had wronged me in that way, I've seen enough 80s action movies to at least on an emotional level think that the proportional response should be like-for-like, but it's doubtful that I would actually go through with it, even if it were possible. It's kind of rare that the justice system lets murderers and rapists off the hook.
And as we all know, the law allows you to defend yourself and others in such a situation, even if it means killing the intruder to subdue him. Chasing him down the street, and continuing to beat him to within an inch of his life after he has been subdued and is no longer a threat, is obviously not legal.
If someone breaks into your house and deliberately murders your family, you know they're not going to get 5 years. That said, I would be perfectly happy to see a strengthening of current laws and the punishment metered out, but as I said in another thread on the same subject, that's very different than abandoning the laws to the point where it's just Wild West rules.
I think if the opportunity presented itself, you could probably have a bit of "fun" with taking matters into your own hands, without having to go as far as to landing yourself in jail. But even so, there have been many instances where various violent acts have received leniency from the courts, if they were crimes of passion, or if there were extreme mitigating circumstances. However, with the case in question, his family was not hurt, and spending the better part of an evening bashing someone's brains in and breaking a cricket bat in the process is just taking things too far.
As I said earlier, morally and emotionally, I can get on board with the idea of like-for-like punishment, but in exacting that kind of revenge, I would be aware that there would potentially be consequences, and I just couldn't in good conscience say that such actions should be legal, even if the specific circumstances might warrant some degree of leniency.
I'm quite sure I wouldn't, assuming the media accounts of what they did to this guy are true.
roud:
