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

[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.

[dhae_knight_1]

It was very obvious that it was the police who shot the brother, and BAU who tried to stop them. And I'll bet at least part of that was that convicting Mason would probably have been easier with his brother's testimony, and also because they understand that the brother probably didn't fully understand what he'd done, trusting and relying too much on his broter's brain.

Hightower shooting Mason was understandable, but a waste. No, maybe they wouldn't have gotten a conviction (although, they had the research notes and Mason's near-confession), but even if they hadn't, it's doubtful he would ever have found a killing partner again.

I think the Piano man case got it right. They stopped the victim from exacting her revenge because it was the right thing to do. For her. Kidnapping and torturing him is bad enough - but killing someone?

Sometimes I do wonder what all the action-movies where people get killed in droves does to our perception of what killing another human being in reality costs us. :-(

[citjara.livejournal.com]

I think it would've been possible to convict Mason on accomplice charges. It was pretty clear he was the mind of this team, as his brother probably wasn't even getting the difference of right and wrong (and these people can be lots harder to convict!).

Sometimes I do wonder what all the action-movies where people get killed in droves does to our perception of what killing another human being in reality costs us. :-(

Yes, yes, yes!! Often, revenge is portrayed to be right, to be a kind of closure. I'm not certain it is, because if you go through the process of dehumanizing another human being in order to kill them, you're twisting your own mind.

[nwjarvis.livejournal.com]

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.

I think it's supposed to make you uneasy. I firmly believe that one of the basic, and most important, principles of CM is that Killing A Person Is A Bad Thing - even when it's necessary, even when "You did what you had to do." as we hear so often on the show.

I firmly believe this principle. I don't want to open a political discussion, but this is the reason my stomach turned over at the sight of people cheering and celebrating at the news of bin Laden's death. I believe it was a necessary thing, but no human being's death should be a cause for celebration.

[citjara.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure this "Killing a person who's done bad things is wrong" rings true in all episodes - but in many.

Either way, I have many qualms about killing another human being, even if it were a "justified" killing, so you don't have to convince me there.

[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]

gsyh, have you ever seen a movie called "Extremities"? I'd be interested in your take on it.

[dhae_knight_1]

I'm pretty sure Hightower got life in prison. At least Hotch says that he gave his leg for his country and the rest for his sister, while we see him get locked up in a cell, so... Yeah. I think that one's pretty obvious.

And I have very real problems with hurting people for what they *might* do in the future. One of many reasons I feel the laws concerning terrorism was the beginning of a very slippery slope, because how the heck do you convict someone for something they haven't yet done? At what point do you pass the point of no return for the criminals? At what point do you say; "you were going to go through with this," and not have it be merely speculation?

Is it desirable to stop terrorists (or, indeed, any criminals) before they hurt others? Of course it is! But when can you say, with certainty, 'you were going to do this thing', rather than just, 'you were planning to do this thing'?

[gsyh.livejournal.com]

Read please, for what more they would do. Not talking about killing or convicting on suspicions alone, or even fantasies alone (even though fantasies always precede action), but keeping away from society, people who have already started, because once someone is started, it's pretty damn hard for them to stop - cause hey, they already aren't innocent.

I wrote a lot of sick fuckery for the kink meme, but I've never DONE it, there is a difference between fantasy and reality. I can't imagine why I would ever cross that doorway considering the consequences, people getting hurt, my conscience, that reality is never as satisfying as fantasy (and no kill would be like the first, but people will keep trying). But if for some reason I do, cross that doorway, is there any reason in the world at all why I would stop once I've started? To first start, you must justify it to yourself, and once you have, how do you fix that?

Ed Kemper was one of the rare ones who stopped himself, and to do that, he called the police.

[dhae_knight_1]

But... The way I see it, either you're talking about killing someone for what they've already done, or you're talking about killing them for what you think they might do. There... Isn't really anything in between, is there?

No, I don't think very many who do stop themselves. But I do think, with help, most can, eventually, be brought to see what terrible things they've done. And on the basis of that, and even more help, change.

[citjara.livejournal.com]

Hightower certainly was convicted. His sentence may have been lessened for mitigating cirumstances, but I'm certain he was convicted. His actions are complete waste. He tried to protect his mother so much and now she has lost both children? Yay...

Preemptive Punishment certainly doesn't work in our current legal system. It's about what you did, amd that has to proven within a legal framework.

[dhae_knight_1]

Not having any siblings (aside from a 12 year older half-sister I didn't know until I was 18), I'm having trouble telling if that's something an older sibling would do for a younger one, or if it speaks to some underlying sense in the family that he was, somehow, worth less than his sister. So it was okay for him to... well. Waste his life like that to avenge her.

I just... I feel like his mother could (and probably should) have done something to prevent it. That she should have welcomed him home with open arms, rather than send him out onto the streets at night to look for his sister. I mean - the guy just lost a leg, for crying out loud!

It was a very depressing double-ep., all around, I think, and the closing "quote" summed up the feeling of it perfectly. Sometimes the day just... ends. There are no wins, no upsides, and everything seems... empty.

[citjara.livejournal.com]

I'm the youngest child in my family, but I'm not sure it's connected to that. I would rather say that the "point" in revenge is that you stop thinking clearly and forget the consquences of a action. The fact that his mother may now be alone is something that may have only hit him once he was taken into custody.

[nwjarvis.livejournal.com]

About Hightower... I'm not so sure what his eventual disposition will be. Obviously he committed some degree of murder, but I'm not sure how responsible he was at that moment. I don't know the details of Canadian law, but in the US, after searching all that time for his sister, then sitting there at the scene watching all the things going on there, then being told that the dogtags his sister was wearing had been found among the muck --- well, he'd have a really good shot at 'extreme emotional distress.'