Vigilante Police

Cat Lady, as she has been affectionately nicknamed, was caught in a despicable act. I am not going to put myself in the place of an animal activist, but torturing animals like that is downright wrong. The problem was, and has been for centuries, that things done in the dark (Metaphorically) are not often found and prosecuted. Just as copyright holders can claim thousands of dollars for infringing on a track worth $0.99, is it OK to retaliate harshly on the one person that is caught in other acts? The article “China’s Cyberposse” had an interesting way of putting the phenomenon, saying it is: “a form of online vigilante justice in which internet users hunt down and punish people who have attracted their wrath.”

The first part of this statement, talking about vigilante justice, really parallels the justice system in place in developed countries more than we are willing to admit. Both Share:

· Fervor in hunting wrong-doers (China’s Cyberposse)

· Overly-large punishments (The Ballad of Cat Bin Lady)

· Human influence in the decision (China’s Cyberposse)

According to our own justice system, at least monetarily, criminals can be handed a much stiffer sentence than equivalent to their crime. Just because we do it, it doesn’t make it right.

The second part of that statement, though, is not sanctioned in developed justice systems. Acting based on wrath is generally a very bad idea that we try to weed out. It usually ends with an unjust punishment.

Is it wrong to prosecute people that do such things? Not necessarily. I do not believe the $150 fine given the Cat Bin Lady would have been sufficient, but it was still taken too far. In the last few years as a Christian, I have learned that the intentions of an action are never given enough thought. The justice system is not open to such bias, but the online community is. I really wish all ‘Cyberposse’ members would think of this more often when deciding on retaliation that deeply affects someone’s life.