contemporary philosopher agreed that civilized society appreciates humanity and supports human rights, that's why legal punishment should work well so then if one indeed does criminal acts, the formal legal institution should punish him/her with a process of courtship. yet most believe that it doesn't work in Indonesia nowadays so people held community vigilante, killing criminal actors (recently the emerging issue is burning a "tukang begal" in Tangerang).

I simply believe that we should obey the legal constitution or whatever the term is, BUT it's not a kind of lip-service from political elites (police or judge). I've found so many abuses of authority, for instance:
1. premans pay monthly dues to police for protecting their communities (and also protect their criminal actions).
2. suspects pay fines (pungli) to police for releasing them from jail short after they're caught by people and bring them to police.
3. so on.....

that's why we feel doubt to police and some people judges towards the criminal actions by themselves like mob killing, mob torturing, and mob burning. is vigilante barbar and primitive? is that wrong way to punish criminals? yes, it is. but it's kind of disappointment towards legal institutions.
however rationally law was created as to avoid vigilante justices. ironically law doesn't work its aim along the way.

wikipedia cites:
"Vigilante justice" is often rationalized by the idea that adequate legal mechanisms for criminal punishment are either nonexistent or insufficient. Vigilantes typically see the government as ineffective in enforcing the law; such individuals often claim to justify their actions as a fulfillment of the wishes of the community.
Wikipedia "Vigilante"

why did I create this thread?
to make sure there will be an effective discussion so that we can learn to be confident showing our own ideas and arguments, we can have tons of vocabs improvement as well.

so the main question is:
"what's your thought on vigilante?"
wiss, monggo gan show your arguments.