The reference to vigilante justice may be about killing a suspect before they're imprisoned or even tried, such as when a mob storms the local jail. The theory is, if people believe only death can bring justice, and the state doesn't have the death penalty, then the vigilantes will take matters into their own hands. Ergo, the state should have the death penalty.

Having recently done an in-depth review of arguments for and against the death penalty,[1] I can say that this argument is not prominent in the discourse.

[1]: https://fairmind.org/guides/death-penalty

▲

shiroiuma 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I see; this makes more sense. It's a little hard to imagine these days though, but ages ago, mobs storming the local jail and hanging a suspect wasn't that uncommon.

	▲	aspenmayer 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> ages ago, mobs storming the local jail and hanging a suspect wasn't that uncommon. Sometimes, suspects don't even make it to the jail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby_Shoots_Lee_Harvey_Os... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre Uncommon or not, vigilantism is incompatible with justice on a societal level, regardless of any alleged guilt of offenders. Without a showing of evidence, a trial of the accused, and a verdict that withstands judgment, we're left with theories and conjecture, and hatchets long left unburied.