ENGLISH 1102
E-PORTFOLIO
FOR JUSTICE
INTRODUCTION
When searching for topics to inquire about, I wanted to delve into issues that would truly interest me and question my judgment. For that reason, I decided to look for crime-related stories. According to an FBI press release, here the number of violent crimes in the U.S. in 2012 was this: 1,214,462. Also from the release, “the violent crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, and aggravated assault increased 1.1 percent, 0.2 percent, and 1.1 percent, respectively” (FBI.gov). The problem with crime is that there seems to be more happening than there are prevented; not every crime is reported, and not all of them are handled by law enforcement. For this inquiry essay, I decided to ask myself this: “Is it acceptable for people to take the law into their own hands without legal authority? How should vigilantism be handled?”
First off, according to the free dictionary definition, a vigilante is “one who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.” I understand that many cases are extremely situational and each must be dealt with differently. However, the thought of taking one’s life in order to save others is hard to debate. Although not every vigilante necessarily kills other people, here’s an example of one who does.
THE DEXTER TV SERIES
For those who have not seen the show, let me give some background information. Working as a forensic blood spatter analyst in the Miami Metro’s Homicide division, Dexter Morgan isn’t your ordinary protagonist in the TV series Dexter. Death is a reoccurring theme in his life, which is shown throughout the show. For example, when he was just a toddler, he witnessed his mother’s brutal and gory death happen right in front of him. It seems like this event in his existence is what traumatized Dexter to the point of becoming who he truly is. After that tragic day, Dexter was taken into care by Harry Morgan who, at the time, was a detective for the Miami Metro PD. Harry immediately noticed the signs of Dexter’s notorious dark side early on in Dexter’s adolescence. As the father figure, Harry decided to use his detective skills to teach Dexter how to evade getting caught; he taught Dexter “The Code.” Essentially, Harry sees Dexter’s desire to kill, and uses that knowledge for the arguably good side of a morally-wrong situation. I appreciate this code during the show because it shows that even someone as emotionless as Dexter knows the standard idea of good vs. evil. This series is definitely one of my favorites to watch.
The original picture comes from the cover of Dexter Season 6: "The Avenging Angel."
This image shows Dexter in one of his signature kill rooms (found on the Dexter Wiki Page).
When a target is chosen, Dexter goes through a relatively specific process in order to relieve his deep, dark desires. In this routine, he stalks his prey, confirms that they are a threat to society (have already committed serious crimes), and prepares a kill room to serve justice and clean up the mess. Since he is constantly surrounded by law enforcement in Miami Metro, he has to stealthily act like a “normal” human being. Fortunately, his job choice allows him to tap into resources that allow him to make progress on his private activities. Out of those resources, Etorphine plays a big role in the show. Also known as M99, Etorphine can “immobilize elephants and other large mammals.” This sedative frequently makes an appearance whenever Dexter sneaks up behind his target and pricks them with an Etorphine-filled syringe (Dexter Wiki).
I enjoy the show because I like seeing the bad guys lose. However, the show is morally conflicting, especially when Dexter kills innocent people in order to save his identity. For example, I was deeply saddened when Sgt. Doaks was the scapegoat that Dexter used to prove that he wasn't the "Bay Harbor Butcher." Looking at the infographic on the right, the number of lives taken versus the number of lives saved is unmatched. No doubt, that statistic is reassuring for Dexter's case, but sadly we can't justify fictional murders.
Not only does Dexter steal various items such as Etorphine, but he also does a great deal of trespassing. Aside from the obvious killing in the show, Dexter’s moral code motivates him to unconsciously break the law so that he can serve some justice to other criminals. As I mentioned before, Dexter is the epitome of a psychopath killer, and he spends the whole time trying to feel human. According to Dr. Robert D. Hare, psychopaths have a deep inability to “care about the pain and suffering experienced by others—in short, a complete lack of empathy, the prerequisite for love.” Interestingly, although Dexter is a fictional character, someone like him most likely exists in real life. In the late 90s, there were at least two million psychopaths in North America (Hare 2-6). Today, it’s much harder to tell because of how easily these characters blend in society. If the so-called everyone’s favorite serial killer was real, would you side with him and be able to justify all 90 of his victims? Now this is assuming that the particular killer targets big-time criminals. Personally, I would feel safer if the world had more Dexters to rid the world of evil scumbags.
Real-life Dexter
As crazy as Dexter Morgan is, what’s crazier is that there are people in the real world who are just like him. In a tiny Alaskan Town, a young woman by the name of Miranda Barbour achieved what most young adults her age have not: potentially committed up to 100 murders! Now that feat isn’t one that anyone should be proud of, but just like Dexter, Barbour’s victims are supposedly bad people.
Infographic containing the number of lives taken by Dexter. Also, it shows the number of lives that the serial killer avenged (found on the Dexter Wiki Page).
In recent news, Barbour and her husband, Elytte Barbour, were caught in a shocking case that may send chills down one’s back. As mentioned on CNN, the Barbours are accused of “stabbing and strangling a man to death on November 11, 2013.” Before the killing, the couple found the victim, Troy LaFerrara, through a craigslist ad and “lured” him out. Essentially, Miranda Barbour tested morals LaFerrara by claiming that she was underage. However, he failed her test by still trying to advance on her. Then, both of the Barbours completely slaughtered the supposed sex offender.
Similar to the Dexter series, Troy LaFerrara just happened to be one of the criminals who fit the killer’s code. Nonetheless, what’s unsettling to me is that Miranda Barbour wasn’t alone. Also, I can’t seem to get around the fact that she found a significant other who would ultimately help her murder others. Did the couple really help make a difference and save lives by taking someone else’s? I am deeply disturbed by the kind of mindset that the two may have. The problem with this kind of vigilante justice is that, in my opinion, there isn’t any. Some may be able to argue that the deadly duo prevented a potential rape case, but I believe that they would have killed someone that night, regardless of who was targeted.
GOTHAM'S DARK KNIGHT
I know that judging fictional characters is tough, but they wouldn’t exist if no one mentally created them. Anyway, with a world full of inevitable crime, it’s impossible for the police or other law enforcement to put each and every evil-doer behind bars. In the chaotic city of Gotham, one man seeks justice, and uses his resources to help rid the environment of dangerous psychopaths. Of course, many know this crime-fighter as the renowned Batman. Likewise, when people think of the popular DC-comic character, they most likely associate him with the word superhero. Similar to Dexter, Bruce Wayne’s alter ego most definitely fits and exemplifies a vigilante. The main difference between the two is shown by their specific set of rules, their codes. Batman doesn’t kill his targets, so he helps by handing over the criminals to the police.
From the law enforcement’s point of view, the superhero is seen as a villain who views himself as above the law. Their lack of knowledge of Batman’s power makes them fearful, and they have every right to feel that way. Our connotations of superheroes make us feel safe because their purpose is to serve justice for the greater good. When it comes to these vigilant characters, think of ourselves as Commissioner Gordon or Debra Morgan because they are the examples of people who have to struggle between right and wrong all of the time. In the comics and in the movies, Gordon aids Batman in taking down numerous villains. In his head, he knows that the superhero desires justice to be served. However, no matter how much Batman helps Gotham, he will never be above the law. No one is above the law, and it’s puzzling to me on how to judge which cases are acceptable as opposed to those that aren’t.
THE OTHER SIDE
Conversely, many people, especially actual law enforcement, advise others not to partake in vigilant acts. In many ways, interference from one or a group of people who are defending their area can ultimately instigate more violence. Riots are severely dangerous, and sometimes difficult to be dealt with. The issue with those cases is that both sides of the dispute may believe that they’re fighting for the right reason. Also, in the case of Batman and Dexter, many vigilantes tend to cause more harm than they intend. For example, in The Dark Knight, all of the broken car mirrors and blown-up vehicles are mainly caused by Batman’s motivation to catch the villain. In that sense, he’s just less of a criminal compared to the Joker, and that somehow gives him the privilege of tearing up the city’s property without guilt. Basically, although they would catch the Joker, all of the money needed to cover repairs would most likely put Batman on the same level.
Sadly, some places in the world are in a worse place than the chaotic city of Gotham, or the criminal-filled city of Miami. I try to take account for each case, and judge each as fairly as possible.
Minimalist artwork of Robin, Nightwing, and Batman
Elytte Barbour, Miranda Barbour, and Troy LaFerrara shown respectively.
Police Brutality
All throughout the country, many police officers abuse their authority by mistreating innocent strangers, or involving themselves with bad stuff on the side. This behavior by cops isn’t anything new. Several stories of police brutality surface the news media and the internet from time to time. Here’s an example from the article Police Brutality:
“In early August 1997, reports surfaced of a police brutality scandal inNew York City. Newspapers across the country reported that AbnerLouima, a Haitian immigrant to the United States, was arrested onAugust 9, 1997, and brought to the stationhouse of the 70th Precinctwhere New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers took Louimainto the bathroom, beat him severely, and sodomized him with the han-dle of a plunger. Though a recent study by Amnesty International hadreported an alarming pattern of excessive force by NYPD officers,3 local authorities predictably refused to recognize that the Louima incidentmight represent something more than an isolated occurrence.”
I am deeply troubled by this story because if anyone was told about this incident, chances are they wouldn’t know it was more than a decade old. Plus, the idea of rogue cops is ironic because we’re supposed to feel safe around law enforcement. In a way, have we been conditioned to fear law enforcement? How can we trust them?
Original souce: The Houston Press
As shown in the picture on the left, when I think of police brutality, I notice a lot of occurences in public gatherings such as protests, strikes, concerts, and more. Of course, some people go out of control and ask to be beaten, but this only conditions people to have more fear of law enforcement when they go out.
I believe that this is relevant because if people can't trust the law enforcement to do their job correctly, then they'll feel more inclined to taking matters into their own hands. I don't appreciate police brutality because I don't think it's necessary. When these situations happen, riots may occur, and the community in that area starts to go wild. They turn to vigilantism to protect their people, even if it causes more turmoil.
Just like Alfred says, "some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn" (IMDb "The Dark Knight"). In the picture on the left, a riot in the UK caused normal people to just bring chaos and destruction. That isn't vigilantism even though these people want to create their own illogical kind of justice. Since I've never been in this situation, it's really hard for me to understand and empathize for these people.
MY CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I think that it's really interesting that us as a society have been conditioned to praise superheroes. I mean growing up, we all had our role model, and mine was Batman for a while. In reality, no one every truly knows how many lives a hero such as Batman has and has not saved. I don't think that anyone is above the law, so that's why real-life superheroes must not exist. With their power and wealth, it makes people fear them more than they should. And once humans are threatened, the main defense mechanism is to kill off their predators.
In my life, I've come to experience a lot of situations where I had to choose between two terrible options. Basically, I had to choose the lesser between two evils. In the real world, every case must be weighed equally, and although both may be bad, we must work toward fixing these problems. Should people really take the law into their own hands? Now, I think that some should and some shouldn't. Reality is very situational, so there's never going to be a final answer.