So I came across this thread/topic on some other forums: a father vows to kill his son's murderer if he's released. Sounds extreme, vigilante, and unnecessary, doesn't it? Not if you clicked that link: The murderer sexually molested, murdered, and ate a five-year-old child, and then kept a journal about it. Let me make it clear: I am not a proponent of the death penalty. Neither am I a fan of vigilante justice. That being said, I am also only twenty years old. I have never lost a loved one due to a violent death. I'm certainly not going to go and judge the father for seeking vengeance. In fact, I understand why he would, but I would also argue that if he did kill the murderer, the father would need to be submitted to a legal trial. That's the way the law works. However, "the law" is an entirely human construct that's constantly under a state of revision. (I'm sure anyone who's studied US history remembers a period of time, not so long ago, in which slavery was legal. Even if we're not looking past some 150 years, it was legal to discriminate against non-white ethnicities fairly recently.) Clearly, this law needs to be changed. I also feel that sometimes the law needs to be taken into its own hands--Rosa Parks, for example, "defied the law." Obviously, looking back on it 50 years later, everyone can agree that RP's defiance of the law is hardly similar to killing another person... but that's only because most of us have grown up in a time and place where such racism is unthinkable. In this case, the system's clearly flawed. Would vigilante justice help create a better law? Should it take such extremes? Or is it wrong for the man to do so? Comments on both vigilante justice and the incident welcome.