Persuasive Essay Example on Vigilantism

Vigilantism is a phenomenon that a lot of people are familiar with, but many people are split between the two sides of it. Should vigilantism be justified or not? Kenneth Eade states, “When the law fails to serve us, we must serve ourselves.” She believes that vigilantism should be sometimes justified when the law is having little or no impact on an issue that needs attention. Agatha Christie wrote a book called, “And Then There Were None,” about vigilantism and the outcome of a vigilante taking action. A multitude of characters are involved in the book who have committed various arrays of crimes that have all been overlooked by the law in some form. The suspects all have varying degrees of guilt and how severe the crimes they committed were. These characters all played parts in the death of one or multiple people before coming to Soldier Island, and the readers have to decide whether Judge Wargrave was right to take up the role of a god complex or so-called vigilante and decide who lives and who dies. Vigilantism also occurs in the real world, and not just in fiction. The articles used also state why vigilantism should sometimes be justified. Vigilantism is occasionally acceptable depending on the circumstances of if they feel guilt, the severity of the crime, and if legal enforcement is involved.

In the book “And Then There Were None,” the readers should come to the conclusion that the act of vigilantism that has taken place in the book can sometimes be justified depending on the level of guilt involved and the severity of the crimes that took place. Two characters that prove that vigilantism should sometimes be justified are Vera Claythorne and Philp Lombard. Vera Claythorne was a nanny who took care of Cryill for his mother. She had a love interest who was Cyrill's cousin named Hugo. Vera became obsessed with the idea of being with Hugo but was denied because Hugo couldn’t afford to be with her. Cyrill was inheriting the money Hugo was supposed to have. Vera believed that she could fix this problem by killing Cyrill and then Hugo would love her. Vera thought to herself “She would pretend to swim out after him. But she’d arrive too late, nobody would ever suspect, When Hugo came back - it would all be over. Yes, But supposing it wasn't? Supposing it went wrong? Cyrill might be rescued in time. (pg#229 - 230)” Throughout the book, Vera showed no sympathy or guilt towards Cyril's death and only was infatuated with the idea of being with Hugo. She deliberately planned and succeeded in killing a boy and had gotten away with it with no prosecution whatsoever. It was right for Vera to die because she had killed someone who was unable to defend himself and was unaware of the impending death that was to come far too soon. Without Vigilantism in this situation, Vera would have gotten away with the death of an innocent boy and no justice would ever have been paid. Vigilantism allowed Vera to be punished for her ill crimes that were going to be left unattended by authority. Philip Lombard is also another prime example of why vigilantism is sometimes allowed. Philip Lombard was a petty criminal and he believed legality did not apply to him. He worked in the law and was in the army for some time and gained a reputation for being daring and overscrupulous. He was also considered by the two agents investigating the Soldier Island deaths worthy of being able to have killed them all, so he was not very trustworthy. The important part is that he was accused and he admitted to leading 21 natives to their deaths with absolutely no remorse. He stated, “About those natives, the stories are quite true! I left em’! It was a matter of self-preservation and Natives don’t mind dying! (pg# 67 - 68)” Philip Lombard not only admitted flat out that he intended to let them die for his own life but was also insensitive and acted as though the death of 21 people shouldn’t affect anyone. He continued living his life and didn't think twice about those natives' deaths that would have immensely impacted anyone's life if they held any sort of sympathy for others, or had any emotion at all. Similar to Vera, Philip definitely deserved to die after he had killed 21 people with no guilt hanging over his conscience. The act of vigilantism has proved to be positive because if he felt no remorse over 21 deaths how far could he go, and what could he accomplish with the obvious fact of lacking emotion for others' wellbeing. Vigilantism should only ever be acceptable when the person committing the crime has no guilt or remorse over it, and the crime is substantial enough to warrant the law enforcement's involvement.

Vigilantism is not only involved in fictional stories but also appears in real life too. In the articles “Small Town” and “Search Party,” the readers see acts of vigilantism that take place that show that it is sometimes necessary to take actions into your own hands when the law can’t afford to; and scenarios when actions should be handled by the law enforcement and professionals. In the article “Small Town,” we see a town that had taken matters into their own hands when the law enforcement had no way to prosecute Mc Elroy for the multiple murders and assaults he committed while rarely serving any time in jail at all. Mc Elroy always had a friend to testify for his whereabouts when he was in need of an alibi and became untouchable to the law due to the cunning skills of his lawyer. The town saw his wrongdoings and knew that he needed to be stopped or he would continue his streak of crimes that would only get worse over time. “ Bo Bowenkamp accused McElroy’s eight-year-old daughter of stealing candy. An enraged McElroy shot and fired a shotgun round into his neck... He was arrested and tried for second-degree assault and got out with 2 years in jail and bond.” The usual time that is given to criminals who have committed first or second-degree murder is a life sentence or a minimum of 5 years in jail plus bond. McElroy has already gained a criminal record and almost killed a man and is getting less than the minimum amount of time for attempting to kill someone. Clearly, the justice system was not working how it was supposed to and the town decided to fix the issue. The town had stopped him in his car and had open-fired until he had died. McElroy was in no way a good father or person because of the mere fact that he was willing to kill people under the slightest of inconveniences that occurred to him. In this instance, the town did the right thing and took initiative when the law enforcement couldn’t. Another instance where someone took action above the law occurred but had the opposite outcome that people look for took place within the article the “Search Party.” Edgar Welch had insufficient evidence which led him to believe that people were being held hostage in the basement of a pizzeria. Due to the lack of insight Welch had been arrested for bringing weapons to a pizzeria and Welch had later stated he was self investigating. The issue with this is the amount of people choosing to self investigate has risen which not only leaves law enforcement out of the loop but puts innocents at risk of being hurt or injured because of a lack of educational investigating skills by the normal population. “Millions of people like Welch are abandoning traditional sources of information, from the government to the institutional media, in favor of a D.I.Y. approach to fact-finding. What they are doing is not quite investigating, it's self-investigating.” Vigilantes with deficient evidence not only put others in danger but also themselves. At this point, the law enforcement should be called in to handle the issue which keeps everyone safe. Even though there is plenty of evidence that proves that vigilantism should be sometimes justified, people still believe otherwise. 

Although vigilantism should sometimes be justified depending on the circumstances of if they feel guilt, the severity of the crime, and if legal action is involved; the opposing side still believes that vigilantism should never be justified. The supporters of the opposite side will state that vigilantes are just as bad as criminals because they are also breaking the law. What they don’t show is how vigilantism is used for good causes and has positive impacts when the law enforcement can’t or won’t interact with a situation. Take the “Mexico's Drug Violence Gives Rise To Vigilantism '' article for example, in the article we get information specifically stating that the cartel is taking over with no regard to the safety of anyone but themselves. “More than 6,000 people have died this year in Mexico from drug-related violence… Despite the seizure of tons of narcotics the killing and violence continues.” Without the mayor deciding that a task force needed to be put in place to disturb and destroy the cartel, they would have continued to grow bigger and control the government without any interference from law enforcement. Even when the law enforcement was recovering narcotics it never slowed down the cartel just because of how large of a scale the cartel runs. Without going outside the law and creating this task force the cartel never would have stopped because they had complete power or everything and everyone.