[asfarley]

This article describes a situation where a bad person did bad things, and was eventually stopped.

You are saying: "That was not the solution. But I don't know what the right solution is".

How can you possibly know that there is an alternative without knowing what it is?

I think what you are really saying is: "I have an ideological opposition to violence-as-a-tool which I cannot rationally explain". Or, "the consequences of violence-as-a-tool are so unthinkable that I choose to stop thinking."

Your line of thinking is responsible for the fact that this guy wasn't dealt with sooner. Maybe you should visit some of the victims of his behaviour before dismissing the seemingly-helpful vigilante justice in this situation.

The black-and-white line you're drawing between "blind justice" and "angry, vengeful townspeople" is not so clear in reality. Do we have AI algorithms for implementing first-principles justice? Are you so sure that first-principles justice doesn't include strategies which look like retaliation and revenge?

[rocqua]

The line of thinking could be different from

> "the consequences of violence-as-a-tool are so unthinkable that I choose to stop thinking."

And instead be something along the lines of.

Admitting exceptions where we allow violence-as-a-tool is more harmful than the harm prevented by violence here. Simply because the consequences of an exception set a precedent that lasts for a long time.

This does involve condemning people to their fate. Alternatively, you can take the position that sometimes people really should take an action they should simultaneously be condemned for.

[LorenPechtel]

It stems from a fundamental faith that there is a good solution. Therefore, any non-good action is due to a failure to look hard enough for the good solution.

[Teever]

Which is a totally reasonable position to take except it overlooks the reality of time being a finite thing.