Extralegal morality

Just read this article: Mexican Vigilante Group Threatens to Kill One Criminal a Day. A group of citizens in Ciudad Juárez sent e-mails to media outlets claiming to have formed a “Citizen Commando” with the purpose of killing one criminal every 24 hours. Ciudad Juárez  is notoriously violent due to a long-standing mix of drugs, poverty, and corruption that haunts the city. Even though President Calderón has made ethics and law enforcement a priority, Ciudad Juárez hasn’t been able to shake off its crooked past. Last year the local criminals started beheading police officers who tried to stay clean. The situation is chaotic at best; anarchic is probably more accurate. It makes it hard to knock this vigilante style of retribution.

I spent a lot of time thinking about a related theme recently as I was reading Crime and Punishment. The main character, Raskolnikov, offs a cheerless, old pawnbroker and takes all of her money (which he badly needs to support himself, his mother, and his sister). He has completely justified the murder in his own mind because he believes he has essentially eliminated waste from society in exchange for some greater purpose. In this case, the greater purpose seems only to be his own genius—which he can foster now that he has money to continue his education.  The story is really phenomenal if you can get past Dostoevsky’s penchant for detail. I consistently think that these types of questions make the best literature when in the hands of a talented writer. I’m hardpressed to  imagine a convincing ethical argument that doesn’t condemn murder, but I think it’s smart to be willing to question our traditional notion of law as the keeper of right vs. wrong.