Parents, the law, and vigilante justice

[Flatlander]

In the Globe and Mail, a national Canadian newspaper, this recent story has precipitated an online poll, the results of which I find disturbing. I have added a screenshot of the polling results (1 day poll).

Personally, I believe that a secure, democratic, and stable society must necessarily be predicated on the foundation of the rule of law. Nowhere within the Canadian Criminal Code is there a provision for anyone to administer justice on their own. All cases must follow due process. Ergo, I am somewhat troubled by the overwhelming response in favour of the poll question, "Is it ever justifiable for a parent to take the law into his or her own hands in order to protect their child?"

It seems to me that an answer in favour of the justifiability of a parent "taking the law into their own hands" indicates that people have faith in the ability of individuals to adequately assign guilt, and determine appropriate punishments to be delivered over that of the legal system.

What are your thoughts?

 

[bushidomartialarts]

i suspect the poll doesn't really say what it thinks it says.

when answering 'yes', most parents would imagine a situation where going to the police would do no good, or that they had already gone to the police.

i suspect if the question was 'to protect your child, would your first action be to circumvent the law and take vigilante action?', the numbers would be very different.

i'm from your cocky neighber down south, so i can't speak to canadian thought on the matter. in the us, many of us believe in the system but we all know how slow it is to react. cops down here are mostly to catch the guy afterwards.

with that knowledge, there isn't a parent in the country who wouldn't shoot, stab or otherwise take it to an immediate threat to their child. this doens't indicate lawlessness. just a healthy understanding of the legal realities.

 

[Cruentus]

I don't think that "taking the law into your own hands" refers only to revenge.

I think that most people voting "yes" are thinking of purely hypothetical situations were there is imminent jeoprady, in which case law is obsolete, and you have to do what you can to ensure safety and security of your child.

So considering this, the results neither disturb nor surprise me at all.

 

[Lisa]

I think I would be more surprised and worried if it were the other way around. When I, as a parent, read the question being asked, I automatically think of imminent danger.

It seems to me that an answer in favour of the justifiability of a parent "taking the law into their own hands" indicates that people have faith in the ability of individuals to adequately assign guilt, and determine appropriate punishments to be delivered over that of the legal system.

Not sure if it indicates that people have faith in other individuals but have faith in themselves to adequately assign guilt and determine punishment.

 

[tellner]

It's a badly designed poll. "Take the law into their own hands" and "protect" conflates two very different things, revenge and protection. Revenge is illegal. Using force, even deadly force, to prevent the "imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious bodily injury" to your child comes under the heading of self defense and is a perfect defense if you can convince the jury of every one of those words.

Would I kill someone if it were the only way to keep my wife or putative child from being harmed? In a heartbeat.

Would I track someone down and kill him if he hurt them? I'd be a fool to say "yes" in a public place because it would be murder.

 

[Andrew Green]

Bingo, polls can almost always be worded different to get different results.

"Protect" is the key one in there, most people would do whatever it took to protect there child. Seeking revenge after the fact is a different matter.

 

[Carol]

Bingo, polls can almost always be worded different to get different results.

I agree completely

"Protect" is the key one in there, most people would do whatever it took to protect there child. Seeking revenge after the fact is a different matter.

I agree completely (again)


There may be child protection laws that parents willingly violate becase the law is not in the best interest of the child (such as...pulling the child out of school due to an unsual situation). As Andrew said, there is a big difference between something like that and seeking revenge for something after the fact.

 

[Don Roley]

Is it ever justifiable for a parent to take the law into his or her own hands in order to protect their child?

If that is the way the question is phrased, then the only reasonable response from a parent would seem to be "yes."

To me, as a parent, I can't understand the mentality of someone who would answer that the system has failed to protect their child but we should do nothing for fear of breaking the law. If someone is a threat to my child's life, I will protect them however I can. I am not talking about revenge. I am talking about protecting my child, even if the law does not approve.

Kidnapping is wrong, correct? But if a woman knew her ex-husband was sexually abusing the kids the court put in his care, would she be doing the right thing to let that type of thing continue if no one believed her and kept the kids with the abuser? Or would it be better as a parent to kidnap the kids and keep them away from years of sexual abuse. There have been cases where this has been the excuse given for some people's actions. Some of them are probably true. I can understand how society has to work within certain rules and standards of evidence, but I can also understand why someone would act on their own even if they could not convince the law of their reasons.

 

[Mariachi Joe]

i suspect the poll doesn't really say what it thinks it says.

when answering 'yes', most parents would imagine a situation where going to the police would do no good, or that they had already gone to the police.

i suspect if the question was 'to protect your child, would your first action be to circumvent the law and take vigilante action?', the numbers would be very different.

i'm from your cocky neighber down south, so i can't speak to canadian thought on the matter. in the us, many of us believe in the system but we all know how slow it is to react. cops down here are mostly to catch the guy afterwards.

with that knowledge, there isn't a parent in the country who wouldn't shoot, stab or otherwise take it to an immediate threat to their child. this doens't indicate lawlessness. just a healthy understanding of the legal realities.

Sounds right

 

[exile]

Just about every post above has got the story 100% right, I believe. The crucial phrase is, `in order to protect their child'. That means, to do something which will have the desired result of keeping their child from harm. No parents will shirk any action at all whose result would be to save their child from peril. If you phrased the question as,

would you place your own life in mortal danger to protect your child?

the answer would be the same. In fact, if the question were any of the following—

would you betray your best friend/rob a bank/cut a finger off with a bread knife to protect your child [from mortal peril]?

almost every parent you interviewed would say yes. Compared to the life of your child, nothing has importance or significance.

And because of this, the poll is virtually meaningless. It doesn't measure societal attitudes towards the justice system, though it purports to. What it's really measuring is the degree to which parents are willing to sacrifice everything for their kids. And if the day ever comes when that willingness isn't total and limitless, the species is in grave trouble.

 

[Rich Parsons]

In the Globe and Mail, a national Canadian newspaper, this recent story has precipitated an online poll, the results of which I find disturbing. I have added a screenshot of the polling results (1 day poll).

Personally, I believe that a secure, democratic, and stable society must necessarily be predicated on the foundation of the rule of law. Nowhere within the Canadian Criminal Code is there a provision for anyone to administer justice on their own. All cases must follow due process. Ergo, I am somewhat troubled by the overwhelming response in favour of the poll question, "Is it ever justifiable for a parent to take the law into his or her own hands in order to protect their child?"

It seems to me that an answer in favour of the justifiability of a parent "taking the law into their own hands" indicates that people have faith in the ability of individuals to adequately assign guilt, and determine appropriate punishments to be delivered over that of the legal system.

What are your thoughts?

Things I have done to protect those with me be they a child or not.

Driven backwards on a oneway street to avoid people getting out of a vehicle.

Driven the wrong way down a oneway street for a block to then take another turn to avoid people carrying weapons openly in the street.

I have gone faster than the speed limit to avoid people on the express way and also done illegal u-turns to get away from people.

I have done other things as well, and yes these were most likely against the law as assault (* verbal or posturing *) and or battery (* contact of different degrees *) are considered breaking a law.


While these are all taking the law into their hands. Yet to go after someone with the idea of vegence or handing out justice is a different manner.

I think Lisa hit it for when parents read something like this, they assume danger to their child, which is why the personality tests such as Myers-Briggs have dropped questions in dealing with children as peopler react differntly to these condition then they do to the average person they meet.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

In the town where I live a child was sexually abused by someone in a position of authority at his school (principle if I recall correctly).
The father felt that the legal system didn't do it's part, as the guy wasn't doing hard time......father calls up the guy and says he's coming over to break his legs.......does so.
father does hard time, hailed as a hero by parents everywhere.
Toronto columnist states something like (paraphrasing as it was some time ago....i'm looking for the story) "if the punishment for sexual abuse was a beating by the child's parent.....you'd probably see a reduction in offenses."

I can't say what I would do if it happened to one of my kids.

 

[Mariachi Joe]

In the town where I live a child was sexually abused by someone in a position of authority at his school (principle if I recall correctly).
The father felt that the legal system didn't do it's part, as the guy wasn't doing hard time......father calls up the guy and says he's coming over to break his legs.......does so.
father does hard time, hailed as a hero by parents everywhere.
Toronto columnist states something like (paraphrasing as it was some time ago....i'm looking for the story) "if the punishment for sexual abuse was a beating by the child's parent.....you'd probably see a reduction in offenses."

I can't say what I would do if it happened to one of my kids.

I work with many kids who have been sexually abused, and I can't express in words how much it angers me to see the turds responsible walk away with with doing at a max 3 years and sometimes just probation.

 

[tellner]

Friend of mine was a prison guard for a while. He quit out of a very real fear for his immortal soul and what the job was doing to it.

One of the stories he tells is of a prisoner who was in for murder. A family friend had raped his young son. He went over to the man's house, shot him in the head and called the police. He didn't get any guff from any of the other convicts.