Wow. That would be a heck of a jury to serve on. Frankly, I’d have to hear the testimony.
Men will kill in defense of their family. It’s an instinct and a good one. Done after the fact and in place of due process it just has to be illegal, or civilization breaks. Understandable as it may be.
The great risk in vigilante action, of course, is that the vigilante is wrong. He’s all well and good and “understandably enraged” until he pulls the trigger on an innocent person. There’s a good reason for due process, and as agonizing as it is sometimes, it slows the “revenge” process and forces some discipline to making sure that the ~actual~ right person has been nabbed.
I think sentencing could be a point of consideration. The enraged father taking out his daughter’s rapist in a moment of passion isn’t the risk to society at large that is the gangbanger thug who just points and shoots guns out of car windows at random. He’s highly unlikely to ever do it again. I’d give him a far lighter sentence that the gangbanger. Far lighter.
But consider the enraged father who hunts down and kills the wrong guy? A totally innocent person is dead. What now?
But consider the enraged father who hunts down and kills the wrong guy? A totally innocent person is dead. What now?
Father stands trial. Found guilty. Sentenced to death. Executed. Real killer is still roaming the streets. Second innocent man killed. Now what?
(I couldn't resist.)