The police have access to the rap sheets, and they would have judgement as to what type of criminal was acceptable to associate with a crime or not. It wouldn't be a perfect system, but it would be more reason to avoid committing violent crimes.

Don't assume that. The death penalty hasn't been shown to deter crime, so why would a little beat down?

And what about all of the assault and battery/assault with a deadly weapon/attempted murder/murder you would be overlooking as you allowed the gangs to commit these crimes?

Maybe if we actually used the death penalty. People get sentenced to death then spend the rest of their life appealing. They should get one appeal then be walked out back and offed.

Eventually just about anyone would be able to justify assaulting just about anyone else. What could possibly go wrong?

Edited by Sprint_DA 2009-06-10 11:07 AM

Maybe poor defendants should be afforded proper council the first time?

Better yet, maybe we should just scrap the whole system completely and just execute the accused.

I doubt it... In Philly if this were more common, hard core criminals would start carrying concealed weapons (the ones that don't already) ALL THE TIME and the violence would escalate even further and the previously innocent vigilantes would be lying dead in the street...

 

Edited by maxmattmick 2009-06-10 11:31 AM

I am not sure of the statistics here, but I believe 99% or more of the criminals executed committed no additional crimes.

So with your new system of legalized beatings/killings, what level, number, etc...of crimes would someone have to commit before killing them on the street is legal.  Then is there a charge brought on the vigilante?  What if someone is involved in more than one vigilante killing?

Edited by Sprint_DA 2009-06-10 11:35 AM

It's not a system so much as a policy. As I already said, I leave it up to the police when to associate someone with a crime, unless people actually witness the crime being committed. At that point, it becomes up to the local authorities as to whether a shoplifter or a rapist can be beaten by a vigilante mob.

You're talking about recidivism, but you're right. Killing people does prevent them from committing future crimes. BUt you know what I'm talking about.

Here's an idea: kill 'em all. Not only will there be no recidivism, we can close all the jails.

Just make sure you pay your traffic tickets...

So your policy is, when someone is associated with a crime and the police are seeking them it is ok for a mob to beat them into the hospital/possibly more severely instead of letting the police get a warrant for their arrest, arrest them, and give them a fair trial?
I would think that a better system would be for:

1. The police to do their job and their own leg work.
2. If the police are going to announce that they are seeking someone for a crime, to have citizens call the police and offer them information that leads to an arrest.
3. Give that person a fair trial, even if I don't like or understand the crime they committed.
4. Let a jury decide on their guilt or innocence.  (This is where a group of people really should be involved in the process).
5. Let a judge decide the type and duration of sentence.

Seems like a better system than me going out and hitting someone over the head with a 2"x4"

Interestingly enough, a man who was not connected with the attack on the young girl was beaten by a mob.

Police confirmed this week that Michael Zenquis was beaten by a group of people who then called 9-1-1. The officials said Zenquis was taken in for questioning and cleared of any connection to the rape case.

The City of Brotherly Love.

Where is the mob this time?

Car strikes pedestrians, 3 children die

You know thats far from what he was saying. There are far too many career convicts/prisoners who abuse the system. Of course I guess lawyers need to work too.

Try to spin it however you like the death penalty does work. Person commits crime worthy of severe punishment, person is removed from this world to never commit it again. As far as detering well if a criminal is dumb enough or crazy enough to still do it then even more reason to remove them. In time those left will catch on to the program.

Edited by Imjin 2009-06-10 10:20 PM

Do you honestly believe that career criminals are smart enough to make the connection?

Being the open-minded guy that I am, I realized that sometimes an angry mob is not a good thing. If the police are not sure about a "person of interest", they will be more reluctant to ask the public for help in finding that person if they think there is a chance that person will be beaten or killed in the attempt. I still don't give a darn about the person of interest that has a long record, but I do care about the police's ability to solve a crime.

I would like the angry mob that attacked the wrong guy to get prosecuted to put some fear in angry mobs, while the angry mob that attacked a bad guy goes free to put some fear in bad guys.

I'm pretty sure the PPD were right there to arrest the suspects themselves, seeing as it was a police pursuit that was happening when the crash happened.

No angry mob needed.