I want to respond to the recent justice article on tattoo artist Ken Power (“C.B.S. tattoo artist Ken Power has no apologies for being an online vigilante,” Jan. 19) who, it appears, wants to publicly punish those “he” finds guilty. The well-established principle of “a jury of fellow citizens” obviously doesn’t hold a place in his world.
I wonder how Mr. Power would feel if one of his children (or his wife) were publicly shamed (or harassed) by know-it-all vigilantes only to be later declared innocent by the courts?
What does Mr. Power do when the person he has publicly shamed and harassed is later completely exonerated? Who would be the underdog then? Do Mr. Power’s victims have an appeal process available?
I’d prefer to live in a world where the courts, with all their limitations, judge our innocence or guilt rather than some condescending wise guy who is “pretty sure” they have considered all the evidence before imposing their brand of punishment.
Mr. Power and his ilk may feel that “I am not a bad guy,” however, their form of justice, ultimately, is capable of doing as much damage, or more, than any other criminal act that he, apparently, so vehemently abhors.
Given the chain of events that could result if the victim decided to retaliate, and then relatives and friends on both sides decided to retaliate, and so on, and so on, thank God we have courts we can access.
The court has already decided on the seriousness of this act and I hope Mr. Power is not crippled by the sentence he receives today on the charge of harassment. However, it is as necessary to end vigilantism as it is to end those behaviours that Mr. Power detests.