Discussion Post: Vigilantism

[gen-is-gone.livejournal.com]

So, the show has had quite a few would-be vigilantes over the years (A Real Rain and Hotch's actions in 100 coming most readily to mind) but specifically in regards to Regina in Unknown Subject, there were quite a few comments saying the Emily shouldn't have deceived her, and even some that said Regina should have been allowed to murder her rapist. While I agree that the Piano Man was a despicable person, and his crimes warranted his hatred, I found slightly off-putting the idea that one of our team members would condone revenge murders, especially given the past anti-vigilante themes on the show. So my question for you is this: what stance do you think the show has taken in regards to vigilantes and revenge killers, and do you agree?

Comments

[jennygadget.livejournal.com]

You know, I didnt really see that being about revenge killings in general, but specifically about sexualized violence towards women.

The comments Regina made were not about revenge but about feeling safe; the point about Doyle that was made - that we the audience knew better than Regina - was that Prentiss' safety as well as emotional well being would have been compromised had Doyle lived. Likewise, part of what was set up in that episide was the way that sexual assault survivors are so often revictimized; the references to Doyle - I thought - were meant to evoke how posessive and dangerous abusers of intimate partners can be.

So, I also didnt take the ending to be a justification for vigilante murders either, but rather a call to re-examine how we prosecute rape and how we support (or, sadly, more often dont support) rape survivors. To the extent that vigilante murders were justified, imho, it was within the specific context that we cannot expect victims to follow the law if we do not take the time and energy to enforce it on their behalf.

[gsyh.livejournal.com]

it was within the specific context that we cannot expect victims to follow the law if we do not take the time and energy to enforce it on their behalf.

THIS, I support vigilante killings under certain circumstances, but I don't view it as a solution but rather a symptom of our system's failings which must be fixed.

Did you know that the defence for OJ Simpson argue that the fact that he did beat his wife is like, totally unrelated to whether or not he murdered her?

Then there is the problem of early release due to good behaviour...in prison, John Douglas points out that violence is situational: that an offender who has raped women had behaved well in prison, where he did not have the opportunity to rape women...is not an indicator that he won't do it again if you let him out early for good behaviour!

I felt so bad for Regina, she shouldn't have gone through what she have gone through, the rape itself and the aftermath, and she was in danger when she chose to take down her rapist like that - serial vigilante killings are rare because serial killers tends to pick victims they can overpower, while well, the serial vigilante killer will be preying on those who would be strong enough to kill / rape someone in the first place! It could have turned out very badly for her, she should never have been in such a situation.

The Piano Man was possessive of his victims and likes to taunt, if the police have staked out the victims they might have caught him coming back to check on her. In the case of a rapist who was interrupted, but later came back, and even asked why the victim called the police on him, I can't remember if it was Auckland or the other one, in John Douglas's "Obsession". He likes to taunt his victims and he's not an opportunist, I'm not surprised he went back to finish his 'task'.

[nwjarvis.livejournal.com]

In the "Unknown Subject" episode, thought, I though Regina's evidence that he guy she abducted was her rapist was pretty equivocal - she was basing it on her memory of the music he played while he raped her and the tune the guy played in the piano bar. As it turned out, she had the right guy - but she could just as easily have been wrong.

There was an old TV show - "Twilight Zone" or one of those - where a woman who had been raped pointed out her attacker to her husband, who promptly went out and killed the man. Afterwards, the next time they went out, she pointed out another man who she said was her attacker. It turned out that she had been so traumatized that she was seeing her attacker everywhere she went.

Sometimes the guilty go free, and sometimes the process is perverted (as in the Simpson case), but if we condone people killing other people just because they think they need to die, where does it end?

[ansera.livejournal.com]

I found that quite strange too, the idea that people could think that on the show, Regina should've had the chance to get her revenge (because, I don't think there's another word for that). I think the show's been fairly constant on not allowing people to get their own personal revenge, first thing that comes to mind is Reid trying to stop that protective custody witness from killing the man who'd kidnapped his daughter? When that girl started telling him to do it, I honestly thought that nothing good could come from it - it doesn't achieve anything and I was pretty annoyed with the character (which, I suppose, is what they intended for some).

I appreciate this stance, it gives them the objectivity that they should have in their jobs. Even with Foyet, Hotch was afraid about him killing his son and I don't blame him for that. Was there a lot of anger in smashing his head in? Yeah, but given the circumstances I think that Hotch's thoughts were more focused on protecting his son and fueled by his anger from his wife's murder. They try to keep some sort of limitations on even what they can achieve as cops/agents/any figure of authority, and it's nice to see them trying to do right by the law instead of their own emotions. It's why Elle made me so frustrated, after killing that rapist.

On a side note, a show like NCIS doesn't do this - Gibbs kills his family's killer (this, I can almost understand because he's in grief/hurt) but that he's helped by a cop I can't. It'd be nice to imagine that the justice system did hand out justice, but even if it doesn't, I don't think it's up to people to start dishing it out. Considering the place these agents are in, I think any vigilante action on their part would be completely inappropriate. When normal citizens do it, I can't say that I like the fact that they do -I still think they shouldn't- but I can understand how someone could be pushed to try. But, at the end of the day, it's still up to other people to stop them.

[freddie-mac.livejournal.com]

I'd file Hotch's actions in "100" under justifiable homicide. Yes, Foyet died as a direct result of his actions (and Hotch wasn't stopping under he was dead), but Hotch knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jack's life would be forfeit if he didn't stop Foyet permanently. IMHO, not a jury in the world would convict Hotch, given the circumstances.

A difference btw "100" and revenge killings is that Hotch was acting in the heat of the moment -- there was no premeditation involved. A revenge killing is the opposite: the victim has taken time to plan.

[paksenarrion2.livejournal.com]

I agree with this 100%

The manner in which Hotch carried out the killing was a little extreme-beating Foyet to death. But he had just killed Haley, had previously killed 29 other people, had stabbed Hotch, and taunted Hotch with the fact that he was going to kill Jack. Hotch conceivably could have subdued him, arrested him and Foyet could have gone back to prison. However, Hotch knew that Foyet had already escaped once, which lead to Haley dying. He wasn't going to take the chance that Foyet could escape again-leading to the chance that any more people would die. He knew Foyet wouldn't stop until Hotch and Jack were dead or he was dead. Hotch made that choice gladly. Frankly, I would have done the same thing.

[ansera.livejournal.com]

I agree with you - I think it was partly anger over Haley, like said below, but more concern for Jack. That would fuel any parent to ending a life, especially someone who he knew wouldn't blink while killing Jack. It was primal and raw, but even then I think protection was the main reason rather than just anger.

[dhae_knight_1]

I agree with... Everything you just said. :-)

[citjara.livejournal.com]

While I haven't seen "Unkown Subject", I'd argue the show has always rather condemed vigilantism, with the possible exception of Aaron Hotchner, and even then, there was an inquiry into his behavior and choices and I was always under the impression that Hotch himself was shaken by the way he just "snapped". It was understandable, and made understandable for the viewer.

Elle, when she lost it, was portrayed as being completely irresponsible and irrational, and there was hardly any "sympathy" invoked (with me, anyway). It was clear she was at fault, and had not acted in self-defense.

Reid, when he watched the father kill the unsub in "Third Life", not only try to talk him out of it, we later learned he was so shaken by the experience that he wanted to use again AND went out of his way to save Zack (Elephant's Memory).

In "A Real Rain", it was made pretty clear that vigilante justice cannot circumvent real justice, even if that's sometimes slow and not always blind or fair.

I think by protraying vigilantes this way, the show reflects LEOs pretty well. While they know the infamous side of the justice system, I'm quite certain they know how important it is and how important it is that the rules aren't broken and twisted. I'd even say we, as a society, hold LEOs to a higher standard. They have to be the calming force in times of heat and they have to put their feelings aside and do their job.

[nannerz2cool.livejournal.com]

AND went out of his way to save Zack (Elephant's Memory).

Are you referring to the unsub in Elephant's Memory, Owen?

[gsyh.livejournal.com]

Um, 1.19 Machismo?

I love that episode, and the look on Elle's face, I guess that might have been foreshadowing, I still like that episode.

[dhae_knight_1]

I love Our Show for not sugarcoating it and sometimes outright say it. It's not perfect, but it is The Job. And sometimes it sucks, and sometimes they won't convict a killer, but that's The Job. They do the best they can, without taking the law into their own hands.

[freddie-mac.livejournal.com]

This, esp. "how important it is that the rules aren't broken and twisted". The moment an LEO steps over the line, for whatever reason, *everything* the LEO has done previously goes under the microscope. Look at any LEO-involved corruption cases that come up: suddenly, verdicts that seemed air-tight are overturned left and right because the LEO's character is being questioned.

[gsyh.livejournal.com]

I've known too many real life cases of re-offenders*, to feel anything but an urge to applause when someone kills a sexual predator. I don't care if they did it for a self-center reason, in general, assassination is less about the target than what is going on in the assassin's life - I surmise that the Cape Breton vigilante killer. Stephen A. Marshall, was not driven to suicide by police pursuit - he was always going to kill himself, for some reason, he was depressed, he wanted to die, and he chose killing sex offenders as his last thing as oppose to something like a sunset (or addition, I dunno).

Still, end result - less predators.


*Just one example, among many, look up the origin story for Speak Out for Stephanie:
sos.lawrence.com/

The roommate of a woman he had previously beaten and raped said, as soon as she heard who the suspect for Stephanie's disappearance was, she knew the girl was gone - what the offender had learn from being imprisoned, and then let out while still in the prime of his life, was to leave no witnesses. When ask why he had killed the girl, he simply explained that he did not want to go back to prison.

I believe life sometimes harshly leads you to places where there is no happy outcome - but relatively speaking, I would lose less sleep over the cold blooded murder of a child molester, than letting him live, letting his defence revictimize the victims that do dare testify against him in court, giving the chance that he might go free if they are too terrified to take the stand, or make mistakes in timeline because trauma screws with memory coherence. I would lose less sleep murdering a sexual predator in cold blood, than letting him live, and then to lie awake hereon, wondering if he'll reoffend, and where I would then be complicit because I had the chance to stop him but didn't.

I hope life never leads me someplace where the horrid choice and responsibility would be in my hands, but I hope if it does, I"ll do the right thing. Innocent lives > predator.

[dhae_knight_1]

I... Think it's a dangerous path to walk down.

Sexual predators are horrible and indefensible, but... To say that someone who hasn't been tried and convicted in a court of law deserves to die? That's... Not a place I would go. Even as a survivor myself.

Because can you ever be sure? Even if you were the victim, as you say, trauma futzes with memory. Remember the road-rage guy who went around killing people in red cars, but it turned out he was the one who'd hurt his family while driving in a red car? Memory isn't a clear-cut, straightforward recording-device.

Death Wish was a cool stack of movies, but it's a sucky way of building a legal system, because it ends in might is right, and I, for one, don't want to live in a world where the strong can do whatever the hell they want.

[citjara.livejournal.com]

That's such a great scene. Prentiss, Hotch and Rossi know how it's gonna end - revenge - and they refuse to be a part of it. Says so much, plus it clearly portrays the actions of the police officers as quesitonable - if not wrong.

[dhae_knight_1]

Having re-watched To Hell... And Back just yesterday, that's probably the closest they ever come to a revenge-killing. Cool, clear, level-headed murder to remove a killer from the world. They show Hightower getting punished, but they still call it a 'sacrifice', implying (at least to my mind) that Hightower did, if not a right thing, then at least an understandable thing. And they underpinned it by having Hotch, Rossi and Reid talk about whether or not they could convict Mason. Not a question that's been asked a lot on the show.

Elle's arc and A Real Rain were probably the two places where the show was clearest about vigilantism. We do not approve of vigilantism, those said, loud and clear, even though Hotch's shooting the unsub in A Real Rain was... Somewhat dubious. And even though sometimes? Getting a conviction might not be certain, even though they *know* this is the unsub.

But I like that the show takes into account that the legal system isn't perfect. I like that our heroes are human and get frustrated and sometimes struggle with doing The Job. If they took the shortcuts and cheated to punish the unsubs (yes, NCIS, I'm still pissed over the Mother-in-law storyline!), it wouldn't be Our Show.

[citjara.livejournal.com]

The end of "To Hell... And Back" surprised me. I mean they had them virtually in custody, there was no *reason* for the kill as in a necessity to take them into custody. We actually could see Morgan scream and jump when they killed Mason's brother, which said a lot about what Morgan (and the show) thought about how it ended. And while Hightowers actions may have been portayed as more understandable, any of the team would've prevented it if they could have.

It just irks me when "killing the unsub" is the solution. That doesn't mean it's not understandable, it often is, but something inside me *turns* and make me feel uneasy anyway.

[gsyh.livejournal.com]

Personally speaking, I believe in the killing of an unsub less because of what they deserve, but more because of what is necessary, less because of what they already did, but what more they could do. The first we have the leisure of exhausting every legal alternative, the second, if there is no way someone can be kept watch of, and currently we don't have the resources to tail sexual predators that are released even if we believe that they would probably re-offend, then I believe that the people involved in the case have a justification to kill, and on that jury, I would not convict.

I suspect there are many of these cases where No Jury In the World Would Convict.

...actually, the thing about "To Hell And Back" is, they were in Canada, which have very different rules of persecution so Hotch could be wrong on whether the bed-ridden unsub could be convicted - I wouldn't have killed the unsub in that case, but I understand why the veteran did it, and I believe that the veteran would not be convicted for it, he's a veteran who gave a leg for his country, his sister was murdered by a mass murder, No Jury In The World would convict, I wouldn't, even though I wish he haven't done it - the unsub was no longer a threat, in the Canadian system, he'll probably get convicted, he'll get to suffer for the rest of his life, and families of the missing would get to confront him in court.

[nwjarvis.livejournal.com]

Speaking of "A Real Rain", Jason Gideon gave us his thoughts on the subject...

Hotch: Ever cross your mind?

Gideon: Taking the law into my own hands?

Hotch: Not the law. Justice.

Gideon: What's this about? The boys in Iowa?

Hotch: Just a question.

Gideon: I guess I think if I ever let my mind go there then the unsubs will be getting into my head instead of me getting into theirs. That wouldn't be a good idea now, would it?

[dhae_knight_1]

Exactly. Most of the unsubs feel that they're justified, one way or another. Feeling justified is not, and should never be, equated with justification.

[gsyh.livejournal.com]

People keep saying that they want to see Elle come back as an unsub, but I think it's highly unlikely, compared to Gideon at least. Elle strikes me as someone who primary had two major stressor in her life (or three, if you count the death of her father), when she was raped in college (character sheet), and when the Fisher King shot her inside her own home, probably reminding her of the first (she remembers the Fishier King's fingers being inside her wound). I don't see anything morally wrong with Elle shooting the repeated rapist - one who had already driven one of his victims to suicide - but Elle's decision to shoot him was driven less by what he did, and more by what was happening in her life, that she was shot in her own home after being sent home by her boss, something she threw at Hotch during the period where this happen.

Elle handed in her badge, and then she walked away, I don't think she'll do it again, I don't think she'll hunt down rapists and I think she'll view her time with the BAU, or the last months, as a bad time for her and strive not to be in the same situation again.

Gideon on the other hand, is a Complex-PTSD case, Boston stands out and so does the murder of Sarah in his bed, but I think so much has gotten to him there is no longer a clear incident or incidents for him to get over, it all blends together, that's apparent when he told Hotch why the cabin was important to him, it was that one place* in the world where he could be free from the sounds of pleading victims.

My predictions of Gideon, and I say this as a fan with love and concern, are not good. Without intervention (like, if he runs into Elle or his son or his old mentor or someone he knows who'll latches on), Gideon is going to keep driving until he gets sick and die, have an accident on the road, or until he runs into something horrible. Considering Gideon's luck (Footpath Killer, Frank's interest in him), and that a lot of serial killers roam along highways, the last one is high. He's going to snap, kill himself, or Reid is going to get the call about his old mentor being in a nut house, OR, he's going to become an unsub.

"I guess if I ever let my mind go there..."

...and if at this point in his life, Gideon becomes an unsub, I don't think he'll be like Dexter, he's too emotional. Remember how he broke the rules an saved Billie's life in "What Fresh Hell?" I loved him for that, the girl would have been dead if he haven't burst into the house, gun drawn on the very guilty unsub - but the right/wrong of that action hinges on Gideon's instincts being right, and I believe his instincts are wrecked now (I think the BAU got the wrong dude in "Doubt"). Gideon as an unsub would get some innocent people killed...like the afore-referenced Twilight episode.

Hell, Gideon had actually started hallucinating Sarah before he left, and he said that he kept seeing everyone's death. Mentally unstable.