If a person kills a bad person who is guilty of the most heinous crimes, is it to safeguard justice?

If a person kills a bad person who is guilty of the most heinous crimes, is it to safeguard justice? Of course not, the bad guys naturally have legal sanctions, and you have no right to decide a person's life and death. The first time I heard this conversation, I felt very disapproving and a little ridiculous. This dialogue seems very simple, that is to say, a bad person who has committed a heinous crime will naturally be punished by law, and no individual or organization in society has the right (power) to decide this person's life and death. But the fact that we face this conversation seems unnatural. At the last moment of the spike, when the heroine walked out of the restaurant, there was a relaxed conversation between two people on the screen. Faced with "if a person kills a heinous bad person, is it justice?" The question, "Of course not", the heroine's answer is so clear and affirmative, "Bad people naturally have legal sanctions, and you have no right to decide a person's life and death", which is very simple and naive, but very practical. We have a feudal civilization of more than 2,000 years, but there are some shortcomings in law. The feudal imperial power is autocratic, and the emperor, the real dragon emperor, holds the power of life and death of all beings. Although there are relatively perfect laws, even at that time, it was once the most perfect country in the world, but the laws are generally not as good as imperial power, and nobles also have their own privileges, not to mention that a powerful emperor has the power to show mercy and punish outside the law, which makes the law manipulated in the process of implementation, and the real implementation of the law becomes "blue sky", but the implementation of the law is not. At present, our legal system has made great progress, but it is also inevitably influenced by many traditional backward consciousness. We advocate the characteristics of China, and we do not object to the construction of laws that should be adapted to local conditions, and cannot be transplanted to make them "acclimatized". However, in the process of building the rule of law, we advocate the principle of supremacy of law and equality of law, which must be adhered to in the process of legislation, judicature and law enforcement. Only by violating the law and being punished by the law can justice be maintained and a convincing legal environment be created. As the saying goes, Fiona Fang can't be made without rules. If we regard this rule as the principle of doing things, we are required to adhere to certain principles in the process of doing things, otherwise there will be no order, which will make things worse. Just like there is an empty bottle in front of us, we should fill the bottle with stones and sand, and the goal is to maximize the capacity of the bottle. Suppose we pour all these things in at once, usually the result is that we can't even put any more in the bottle before it reaches its capacity. But if we put a little big stone, put a little small one every once in a while, fill some sand and do it repeatedly, we will make better use of the space of this bottle without wasting resources, so as to maximize the use of the space of the bottle. Of course, there are also cases where bottles have special rules, such as bottles with yarn holes and bottles with irregular appearance, which are all special problems in society. Need to consider the targeted use of different stones. However, the basic requirements are simple: obey the rules and respect the law. The law itself is a summary of the law, and there are certain rules in it. The working principle of jurists, lawyers and judges is not to create laws, nor to innovate laws, but to find principled things suitable for social development, to explain them in legal language, to provide theoretical reference for everyone to abide by corresponding social rules, to make reasonable reference to social ethics and rules formed for a long time, and to obtain socially recognized norms. This norm has its natural requirements and conforms to the social contract at the same time. Of course, it also contains the natural concern for human nature, which the society must understand and abide by. Only when the law is recognized by the public can it be better observed. There is a premise that the public must have a basic understanding of the law. What matters is the basic principles of the law and the knowledge about personal protection and property protection. "Bad people naturally have legal sanctions, and you have no right to decide a person's life and death", which is a legal requirement. A game needs rules to judge, so that it can be more exciting, exciting, interesting and dynamic. It's like a football match in the stadium. On the court, the biggest rule is that the referee is the decider, and the referee's judgment power on the court is inviolable-the referee has the right to decide the penalty on the court, the first half of the game, the suspension and termination of the game, and the referee will be punished by the bright card. This series of decisions will make the game go well in the referee's law enforcement, and will not be interrupted because of the player's personal reasons, which will affect the game. The referee's decision is not without rules. First of all, the selection of football referees is strict, thus ensuring the quality and level of the referee group; In addition, the referee's illegal behavior will be punished after the game, and the punishment is very severe, which can ensure that the referee's punishment conforms to the rules to the maximum extent. These rules exist only to ensure the authenticity, appreciation and vitality of football. Only with such authority can the law be convinced and observed by the public, and a leaking bottle can't be filled with water anyway. Good laws and strong execution will gradually correct people's illegal behavior, and good behavior will become a habit and form a benign constraint. People will naturally regard the law as a necessity in life, and the law also has moral constraints.