Unjust Justice: The Reasons behind
Uncivil Acts of Violence

Justified violence. The very words themselves conjure up images of righteous, justified acts, picture your stereotypical law enforcement officer taking down a violent criminal, or military personnel firing upon insurgents and terrorists. These are the prototypical acts that we imagine upon encountering the idea of ‘justified violence’. But when one takes a different perspective on the malleable definition of what constitutes an act of violence being ‘justified’, a fine line is often crossed over legality of the violence that ensues. “Uncivil disobedients” is a term coined by scholar Jennet Kirkpatrick in her book Uncivil Disobedience: Studies in Violence and Democratic Politics, describing these ‘disobedients’ as citizens that break the law because of their belief that their violence is truly done because they believe their efforts are honorable and justified, despite issues of legality or immorality as perceived by others (13). Thus a complex relationship arises between these uncivil disobedients and the law and the treading of the fine line between what is legal and illegal with their actions. Kirkpatrick provides numerous examples of these disobedients, namely western frontier vigilantes and southern lynch mobs. What these unique groups had, despite having varying agendas, was a similar mindset in accomplishing their goals, using violence to meet their demands, often times going above and beyond the grasp of the law to satisfy their goals. Therefore there are circumstances in which these civil disobedients feel justified in committing such violence as a means to accomplish their goals because of their lack of faith in the legal system as well as the preservation of the virtues that they truly feel are being violated. Frontier vigilantism describes the way individuals often took liberties with the law, or more specifically, lack of law that existed during the mid-1800’s, thus a “disjuncture between the law and morality” arose (Kirkpatrick 63). Take the vigilantes groups that formed in Montana during the 1863 gold rush era. A case that illustrates the aforementioned ‘disjuncture’ vigilantes felt involves the murder of a miner, with varying theories as to why he was killed (evidence was non-conclusive, as it was hard to find hard proof during these times). A band of citizens took the law into their own hands and tracked down three individuals they deemed as the murder suspects and turned them in to the proper authorities, hoping for justice to be administered. The eventual conclusion of this ordeal was one of the men was hanged, but the other two were released, not put to death. There were calls to action by the vigilantes that brought them there in the first place, believing that the courts and justice system was inefficient at doling out the punishment that they felt was necessary (Aitken). This groupthink mindset took a foothold throughout most of the western frontier, where the general idea came to fruition that if one wanted a (potential) criminal to be put to death, they would have to do the job themselves as evident in the way Kirkpatrick alludes: “they preferred eradicating domination by law in favor of a radical popular sovereignty that knows no bounds,” the idea of bypassing the law to get things done quickly became a more ‘popular’ alternative because it provided a sense of immediate gratification in putting ‘criminals’ to justice (57). The term criminals used loosely due to the fact that, as abovementioned, the question of whether those targeted by these western frontier civil disobedients were truly guilty or innocent citizens unfairly brought to an ill-fated death. A similar pattern evolved in the subsequent years after the western frontier vigilante movements, with uncivil disobedients taking the form of individuals making up Southern Lynch Mobs. In retrospect, when comparing the lynch mobs to the western vigilantes, many similarities come to light, most notably the “connection between popular morality and the [democratic] law” (Kirkpatrick 75). The statistics accumulated between 1882-1930 accounting for the lynching that occurred demonstrates the affluence of the similar vigilante approach of taking the liberty of administering justice outside of the law, Kirkpatrick notes that there were at least 3000 victims of lynch mobs, indicating these lynch mobs had a propensity to “attack the local criminal-justice system and by articulating a notion of law,” and due to the sheer number of occurrences, it fits the vigilante ‘popular sovereign’ mindset, in that lynching became “rooted firmly in the values and principles of the community (76-80). However there are some differences between the civil disobedients from the western era and the lynch mob eras, most notably the advancements in law enforcement during the lynch mob timeframe in contrast to the ‘lawless wild west’ frontier. The more structured law system during the late 1800’s however did little to dissuade the lynch mobs of the south from surpassing the law, for they truly felt bound to performing their ‘duties’ of bringing perpetrators (or potential perpetrators) to justice. Kirkpatrick points us to two key examples that demonstrate this. The first key case examined by Kirkpatrick occurred in Newman, Georgia circa 1899. The case details were as follows: Samuel Hose, a black laborer who allegedly killed his white employer, Alfred Cranford after defending himself when a fight ensued between the two. However, similar to the western frontier cases, facts and figures were more complimentary than essential in determining the guilt and punishment of a person during this time. Although the killing of Cranford was a (supposedly) justified act of self-defense, headlines hit the town that exaggerated the events leading to Mister Cranford’s death; it was made out that Hose killed him in cold blood, and then subsequently raped his wife after doing so. This of course exacerbated the situation, as it left people in an outrage, leading the formation of a public-lynching mob that called for Hose to be put to justice swiftly. The Governor and Sheriff of Newman, in this case representative of the law at the time, did little to stop the eventual capture of Hose and his ensuing public killing in front of roughly two thousand people (66-68). Cases similar to Hose’s occurred throughout the nation, the doctoring of case details unfairly leading to anger towards the citizen being accused (the creating of a popular sentiment for justice), and the common practice of disobedients taking prisoners from prisons or en-transit to prison and enforcing punishment themselves (the taking of the law into their own hands due to disbelief in the justice system). A second case examined by Kirkpatrick shows that although many of these lynch mobs were meant to keep blacks subservient within society, this form of swift justice was not solely used on blacks alone. In Tampa, Florida 1882, Charles D Owens, a “white itinerant, broke into the home of a leading businessman,” and attempted to rape Ada Macarthy, the sister of the businessman (72). The rest of this example plays out similar to the way black people were lynched, with the capture of Owens from his prison, ending with him later being hung in front of a large crowd. Kirkpatrick points out that white-on white lynchings were not uncommon, in fact “10 percent of [those] lynched in post-constructionist south were white” (73). This revelation therefore makes clear that lynching was not purely a form of racial violence, rather it was also to protect the ‘virtues’ that were prominent during this era: “familiar honor…protecting white feminine virtue…loss of faith in courts” (75). In theory preserving Kirkpatrick’s assertion provided earlier that spoke of the community trying to preserve and stay true to the values that they deem essential. This preservation of communal ‘virtuosity’ is something that was not solely specific with the uncivil disobedients of the previous century, but has continued to persist to the modern twenty first century that we live in. Albeit law and government having far superior power now than back then, there are still cases that exist that follow the uncivil disobedient mindset. The abduction and killing of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 follows an eerily similar story akin to the lynching and vigilante movements in years past. Gaddafi was taken by a group of militia, beaten and stabbed to death, and later put on public display for all to see (a la public lynch mob viewings) ("The Obscenity Of Death"). Also, there were numerous sources citing different stories of how Gaddafi’s death had come into fruition, showing us a similar trend that occurred in the Samuel Hose case in which facts of what actually happened were deemed inconclusive due to numerous conflicting stories . In conclusion, uncivil disobedients have continually clashed with the law due to the disagreement with the efficiency of the legal system, as well as the belief that they are within their rights to put somebody to justice that they feel has caused a rupture in their values and belief system. Illustrated through western frontier vigilantes, southern lynch mobs, and modern day disobedients, this form of ‘unjust justice’ will always be seen as fair and righteous to the select few disobedients that truly believe in the actions that they take, in turn, they believe their acts are or were ‘justified’.

Works Cited
Aitken, Robert. "Montana's Vigilantes: Crime And Order." Litigation 38.3 (2012): 50-54. Academic Search Complete. Web. 1 Feb. 2013.
Kirkpatrick, Jennet. Uncivil Disobedience: Studies in Violence and Democratic Politics. New Jersey: Princeton UP, 2008. Print.
"The Obscenity Of Death." Newsweek 158.18 (2011): 8-9. Academic Search Complete. Web. 1 Feb. 2013.