For everything else there's the law. No reason to set up an extra judicial system based primarily on media headlines.
One thing I find very odd about the disclaimer [2] on California sex offender's site in general is this text in the site's disclaimer...
Penalty for Registered Sex Offenders Who Enter this Website. Any person who is required to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290 who accesses the websites search functionality is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment. (Penal Code § 290.46, subd. (k).) This penalty does not include viewing information on the Main page or within the links on that page.
Why bother making it be illegal for a registered sex offender to search the database?
The stated rationale was to prevent it being a social networking service for habitual sex offenders to find people inclined to collaborate with them on further sex offenses. (Of course, it can still serve the same purpose for current or aspiring sex offenders who haven't been caught yet to network with those who have.)
Unfortunately, it seems to be based on an intention to prevent its use as a "social network" of sorts, which could potentially lead to higher re-offense rates.
Additionally, the folks abusing people have used career pressure to keep folks from going to the legal system in the first place. (see Weinstein). If the abusers can use this pressure, I see no reason why victims shouldn’t respond in kind.
They are not identical terms, but they are overlapping terms.
Using career pressure to punish someone for a crime they committed can fall under the definition of "vigilante".
"A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking."
The distinction in my mind depends on intent.
If the intent is to protect yourself and your business against fall out related to a specific person then I would say it does not qualify as vigilantism.
To avoid people who have done things you don't like also doesn't really qualify.
However, when you actively encourage others to use social opprobrium to punish people, then you are a vigilante.
I'm not wholly opposed to vigilantism, especially given the failure of our legal system in this area, but we should be cautious because there are well documented risks to letting vigilantism run free. Ideally this sort of vigilantism should be a very temporary stop gap until we get the legal system fixed.
"Hey, don't hire that guy or I'm not going to do business with you" is not a third-party attempt to enforce the law. It is a declaration of, like, a transactional condition. The company receiving that message can weigh whether or not putting up with that guy (or even if they are deserving of opprobrium in the first place--after all, maybe the person talking to them is wrong!) is worth the hit to their bottom line and decide accordingly. It's a transaction, it's not a violation of the state's monopoly of force, it's not "vigilantism" in any way that makes the term meaningful and useful in a sane discussion.
There are bounds we have placed on some kinds of transaction--you can't sell yourself into slavery (by some definitions at least), a business can't refuse service to a protected class (unless it can for a set of prescribed reasons)--but "hey, that guy's a jerk and I'm not gonna do business with jerks" is far afield from that.
[0] - https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism
Perhaps you shouldn't call out people who use a valid definition you find "not useful" for lying (mendacity)?
> A crucial nuance that the definition you quoted lacks is that vigilantism is the enforcement of the law by parties not so empowered.
Vigilantism is definitely not "enforcement of the law" since it is often illegal.
I don't think either of us were claiming that this type of vigilante behavior should be illegal. As the legal dictionary you reference points out some types of vigilantism are illegal, others are legal.
What we are pointing out is that vigilantism as a solution to this problem has significant downsides that should not be ignored.
Ideally we are able to reform the justice system so that vigilante action is not required to achieve a just result again criminal offenders.
EDIT: Off topic, I want to also say they I like your vocabulary, you use some good words and looking them up was educational =]
If I'm not mistaken, the core argument being made by GP is: In the current environment, we have a lot of (truly) wronged individuals riling up public support to (reputationally) punish wrong-doers. Over all, this may have a positive effect, because many of these wrong-doers would otherwise face no punishment. However, in some cases, people who are not actual wrong-doers get caught in the cross fire.
It is, however, a cheap rhetorical trick to say "it's vigilantism" to conflate the right of individuals to socially exclude people who do things that they do not like with actual crimes. It is worth noting that you elide that to tut-tut at me.
The argument you're making, which is not the argument that the poster to whom I replied made, is a better but not meaningful one to me. To be brief: it has not been demonstrated that the specter of false positives is anything but noise and concern trolling. Should that change, I'll reevaluate my position. I don't expect to need to.
only got 6 months jail time
But this is not someone's sexual past, it is assault on another human being, and yes, criminal records should matter.
In general, I don't care either...however, if I was to see multiple under-15 charges I certainly would 1. like to be aware of the info and 2. keep my 14yo daughter away from this disturbed predator.
Is their nothing in anyone's past that would give you pause?
I would keep the kid away from anyone who is not the same age as it, give or take 3 years.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-18/will-brit...
> In 2012, police spotted London venture capitalist Stefan Glaenzer acting erratically on a subway platform. He was lurching around, high out of his mind, when he boarded a crowded train and rubbed his groin against a woman standing inside. After his arrest, Glaenzer, the multimillionaire former executive chairman of the online music service Last.fm Ltd., apologized and pleaded guilty to sexual assault, which put him on the U.K.’s sex offender registry.
Of course, there's a worthwhile debate about how we should allow ex-convicts to be a part of society again. But the VC written about here wasn't someone who is accused of just having affairs.