========QUOTE========== > But the most relevant quibble is this: a father who beats these rapists with his fists would also face a longer sentence than these a

========QUOTE========== > But the most relevant quibble is this: a father who beats these rapists with his fists would also face a longer sentence than these accused rapists (who, according to the OP, faced 1-2 years)...because these convicted offenders were juveniles.* * ======================= These offenders were teenagers. They are not five years old, they know - at least in general terms - what's right and wrong, and they know what will hurt someone. And they did it anyway. Charging someone as a juvenile ought to be for kiddy-screwup fist fights and stupid kid mistakes, so that some momentary lack of judgement doesn't screw someone's life up, not for raping someone - that's not a momentary mistake. ========QUOTE========== And as much as we want to celebrate extra-judicial vengenance upon convicts, juvenile or not, I think we should be aware that there may be unpleasant consequences when our justice/political system looks the other way upon unlawful actions in which "the ends justified the means". ...because, I mean, isn't that at the core of the NSA controversy that is currently raging in the the other 20 HN threads? ======================= Not from my point of view, no. The law is going to be selectively enforced - there's nothing you can do about it. And the law is so ridiculously messed up that total enforcement isn't even something desirable. The average person commits, I believe it's 3, felonies a day. The US gov can't even count all the laws anymore. We're all guilty. That's why you need a system that lets people adjust the application of law for common decency. That's why you need a jury of your peers with the ability to refuse to convict. (Granted, a legal theory that seems relatively unknown these days.)