I listened to an interview with one of the groups on LBC a while ago and while I understand the “vigilante message” and their incredibly emotive rhetoric that some buy in to… the fact of the matter is the end product is, more often than not, a horrific mess. I'll scrawl a few thoughts down for discussion because I think it's an interesting hot topic...
1 Why does the public have so much trust in these vigilantes who are strangers? No background checks. No accountability. No clear reasoning of their strong “need” to be involved. I saw one woman say recently she was abused as a child, so that’s why she does it - why is that “justification” never questioned? Whose responsibility is it to question it? (And if you’re reading this thinking the same thing, seek help for yourself) Again, no accountability, there’s no ‘standards authority’, what is the overarching goal? Other “vigilantes” have also turned out to be offenders, but quick, look the other way because white hot anger overrules all.
2 I don’t know the exact figure, but in terms of suicides spurred on by these situations… the number is not zero, so that’s unacceptable. I’d like to know why manslaughter never seems to come up in those cases?
3 There have been cases where the accused has learning difficulties, autism or other diagnosis where surely criminal prosecution could be completely unnecessary. The upset and difficulty this causes to their families is horrific.
4 Would they still take part if they didn’t get their little plaudits on their social media mob pages, or if they had to be silent about what they did? Because the outcome would be the same either way, right? Or, if instead of reporting people to police, they gave help and advice to help the accused change their ways and not make another bad choice in the future? My guess would be mostly no.
5 What happens afterwards? Nobody wants to ask that question and, certainly, vigilantes don’t care. I met a man who was prosecuted via this method. It destroyed his life. He was video’d, it was put online, the newspaper used pictures. It was his first offence and, let me remind you (and I’m choosing my words carefully here), there was no complainant. As he was older but not retired, how is he going to find work again? (Especially when we all know work is one of the biggest positive factors in not reoffending) How does he tackle whatever problems he was having so that he ended up chatting to a decoy? Who can he talk openly to about this crazy world he’s found himself in. Sometimes all people need is an opportunity to discuss what they’re doing and a simple: “C’mon mate, you know that’s not right, let’s get you doing something positive…” could really deter all sorts of problems.
Removing emotion and looking at it in black and white for a second, what actually happened, it was on a screen, nobody was touched, these fake conversations are provocatively structured (important for the manslaughter argument imo) and it was essentially a “thought crime” and that is why the “throw away the key” sentence never happens and they're often suspended. So really ask... what was the point? “Yes, but what if he…” The vigilantes cry. Well how about this - When one starts ‘what if’ing, you must also then ask, what else might a mob decide we should not be allowed to think, especially if they're casting a fishing rod?
So what can be done to protect young people? 1) Even when I was younger I was always told to not talk to strangers online. I’d imagine that message is more powerful than ever these days and that message should continue to be strong, plus, don’t underestimate how smart kids with tech are too. And/or 2) Simply get young people off the internet as much as possible. Developing minds cannot learn so much responsibility so young, it takes, time, effort and human contact. I even see early cause to ban under 18s completely from, not technology, but the internet, but I’ve rambled enough.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|