APRIL 6 ― Don’t take the law into your own hands. So goes a common saying.
Fifty years ago, in 1974, a term was coined to describe vigilantism, which in layman terms is taking the law into one’s hand, that is “establishment violence”.
In Vigilantism: An Analysis of Establishment Violence, H. Jon Rosenbaum and Peter C. Sederberg coined the term to simply describe vigilantism ― a term connoting “rowdy cowboys lynching an unfortunate horse thief”. They wrote:
“It consists of acts or threats of coercion in violation of the formal boundaries of an established socio-political order which, however, are intended by the violators to defend that order from some form of subversion.”
According to the two scholars, vigilantism has two primary intentions: (1) the punishment of offenders against the “established” (legal or normative) order; and (2) the enforcement of “correct” behaviour by those belonging to the same group as the offender.
As such, vigilantism is the summary “justice” dispensed by angered crowds against “criminal” elements.
More than 20 years later in 1996, in “What Is Vigilantism?”, L Johnston identified what he called “six necessary features” of vigilantism, three of which are: (1) it involves planning and premeditation by those engaging in it; (2) its participants are private citizens whose engagement is voluntary; (3) it uses or threatens the use of force.
The last of the above corresponds with Jon Rosenbaum and Peter Sederberg’s vigilantism.
It is because of the use or threatened use of force involving violence, vigilantism must be combated. More so when it is planned and premeditated, and voluntarily done.
We must be vigilant (always being careful to notice things, especially possible danger) against crime, but we cannot be a vigilante (a participant of vigilantism).
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
