|
I don't think the perp's crime(s) generally bring capital punishment as a punitive measure let alone a preventive one. Was the vigilante incapable of blinding the perp; or, severing his spine @ C5 to leave him with major paralysis?
By killing the perp, the vigilante made it clear that even if the police and justice system had worked it wouldn't have been enough for him.
That; or, he was also trying to teach the police and justice system a lesson about working faster (i.e. if people have to take the law into their own hands, individuals can disregard judicial mores).
Too often with vigilantism, even if the goal is good, the implementation is bad. The length of this vigilante's prison sentence seems commensurate with bad implementation. He probably isn't astute enough to do any better. He did the right thing for him.
He didn't do the right thing for society. The end doesn't justify the means. That's not the example we want set for the children he claims to be protecting: it might get them killed later. Even if his goal was altruistic (it could happen!) and he did the best he could, it wasn't good enough to make it right.
|