The Greater Crime

     While I lament the slow death of Blogdom, I must admit that intelligence and insight can be found elsewhere on the World Wide Web. X / Twitter has become ever more interesting since the takeover by Elon Musk, though its mindless “Security” apparatus continues to present users with severe problems. One user who’s made some striking and thoughtful observations goes by the moniker of Black Dumpling:

     BD has made some penetrating and provocative statements, but none more so than this one:

The list of crimes I now think people should be put to death for has grown exponentially because I think it's not the crime one should be put to death for, but the mindset that informed committing it.

This is why I think people who engage in high speed police chases, torturing… https://t.co/ggKSwBhvtw

— BLACK DUMPLING™ (@BlackDumpling) June 29, 2026

     Please click through and read it to the end. For those who “can’t spare the click,” I’ll excerpt the part that hits hardest:

     What would be required for you, as an adult human being, to engage in the willful torture of a dog? Can you think of ANY rationale for why you would do such a thing? If the answer is no, then ask yourself why you would want to share a civilization with a person who not only can do such a thing but would do such a thing.

     BD’s questions cut to the heart of the matter we call justice.

* * *

     The Latin roots of the word justice mean holding rights. The philosophical basis of justice in Christian-Enlightenment societies is the proposition that we who believe in individuals’ rights have an ethical obligation to redress violations of them: if possible, to make the victim whole. That obligation strikes some people as not pertaining to them personally: “Let it be someone else’s problem.”

     As with many other chores we’d rather not be bothered by, we’ve “outsourced” justice to a third party: The State. But while private individuals are largely unwilling to take personal responsibility for justice, popular sentiment about State justice is negative. Witness the tremendous outpouring of applause for the recent movie Citizen Vigilante.

     Black Dumpling’s proposition in the previous segment accords with the general conviction that at this time, State justice is inadequate. Citizen Vigilante and its popularity underscore that conviction. It’s been called “a feel-good movie.” Ponder that for a few seconds and feel your brain itch. But what matters above all else is the subconscious quasi-logic behind it.

     We entrusted the maintenance of justice to the State. The consequences include an expanding tide of violence and predation against peaceable citizens. That is unacceptable. Therefore, the maintenance of justice cannot be entrusted to the State; other enforcers must step forward.

     Note that the above paragraph makes no mention of what “justice” is supposed to mean. Indeed, it could mean nightly Bingo tournaments, or free durians on national holidays, or anything at all. All that matters is that unacceptable consequence. The implication follows directly, though with imperfect logic.

     Ponder that for a moment before continuing on.

* * *

     Most people don’t think about fundamental things. They’ve had terms such as justice indoctrinated into them. “Justice? Isn’t that what the courts do?” You won’t find many high school graduates who answer some other way.

     But as we can see from the previous segment, in the popular conception, “justice” isn’t about correcting violations of rights. It’s about the protection of the innocent from the violent and dishonest. By that criterion, State justice is a failure. But what else is there?

     Only vigilantes. Only killing.

     A people who feel imperiled will countenance the killing of miscreants. They’ll tolerate it, even if at some level they disapprove of it. They’ll know, without needing to reason it out, that when State justice fails, “private justice” – i.e., vigilantes – becomes the only recourse. Many will deem that to be acceptable. But they won’t have considered the second-order effects.

     The masters of the State will note the developments. They will reason that if the populace tolerates vigilantes doing the only thing vigilantes have ever done, then they’ll tolerate a State justice system that executes more often than it currently does. Moreover, the justifications for execution will embrace a wider spectrum of reasons, including imputed intent.

     If you must have a State, do you really want to empower it to kill a man because of what it conceives his mindset to be?

     Black Dumpling has fingered a fundamental question: what shall we do with persons too mentally aberrant to be tolerated among us? Are there any answers other than the one she propounds?

     Have a nice day.