The legal system abhors vigilantism more than any other crime because no other crime so blatantly threatens the legal system's monopoly on justice. Behavior such as this, a father murdering his child's rapist, strikes every decent individual as perfectly just. It is, however, classified as the greatest evil by the institutions we associate with justice.

This is not because those institutions aspire to loftier and more important goals, though we are repeatedly told such lies. Rather, these institutions behave like every other system in that they seek to cement and expand their power while extinguishing without mercy anyone who threatens to circumvent or diminish that power.

The courts are one of the main pillars of the social contract. We cede our natural rights of vengeance and retribution to the state in exchange for other benefits. The implicit understanding is that the state will do right by us in this capacity or lose its authority. Failing to properly punish criminals represents a massive failure in this agreement as well as a far bigger threat to the authority of the system than any knock-on vigilantism.

Put another way: if you are a judge who sends a father to prison for 13 years for the crime of killing his child's rapist, you should be less worried about the threat such a vigilante poses to your authority and more worried about whether or not his brother knows your address.

The legal system abhors vigilantism more than any other crime because no other crime so blatantly threatens the legal system's monopoly on justice. Behavior such as this, a father murdering his child's rapist, strikes every decent individual as perfectly just. It is, however, classified as the greatest evil by the institutions we associate with justice. This is not because those institutions aspire to loftier and more important goals, though we are repeatedly told such lies. Rather, these institutions behave like every other system in that they seek to cement and expand their power while extinguishing without mercy anyone who threatens to circumvent or diminish them.

The courts are one of the main pillars of the social contract. We cede our natural rights of vengeance and retribution to the state in exchange for other benefits. The implicit understanding is that the state will do right by us in this capacity or lose its authority. Failing to properly punish criminals represents a massive failure in this agreement as well as a far bigger threat to the authority of the system than any knock-on vigilantism.

Put another way: if you are a judge who sends a father to prison for 13 years for the crime of killing his child's rapist, you should be less worried about the threat such a vigilante poses to your authority and more worried about whether or not his brother knows your address.

The legal system abhors vigilantism more than any other crime because no other crime so blatantly threatens the legal system's monopoly on justice. Behavior that strikes every decent individual as perfectly just is seen as completely evil by the institution we associate with justice. This is not because said institution aspires to loftier and more important goals. Rather, the institution behaves like every other system in that it seems to cement and expand its power while extinguishing without mercy anyone who threatens to circumvent or diminish that power.