Inadmissibility of Vigilantism or Swift Justice?!

The Constitution of Georgia, or the law of laws, like other constitutions, is mostly accustomed to an "independent life"; that is, as soon as it is approved and acquires the force of a constitution, it lives independently. Its Article 4 indicates that "The State recognizes and protects universally recognized human rights and freedoms as eternal and supreme human values. While exercising authority, the people and the State are bound by these rights and freedoms as directly acting law." The most interesting part of this provision for me as an attorney is "recognizes and protects." Recognition means acknowledging what already exists, while protection implies both positive and negative protection. Overall, the Constitution, in other words, is the "agreement of the people" on the most important issues (I remember one of the constitutionalists I look up to also called the Constitution a book of fears, because mostly we have principles in constitutions that oppose the restriction of the rights of society and the people). Furthermore, whether this agreement is voluntary or not is another matter; but the fact that the Constitution sets certain boundaries is well known;

Issues that each of us has to deal with on a daily basis necessarily touch upon/intersect with the state—that is, the legally created phantom we have made. In some cases, we imagine the state as some building standing aside that is not governed by us, and accordingly, before it we owe either deference or, in the worst case, submission. Statehood is primarily the implementation of the will of the people, not the other way around: for the state's will to be implemented by the people. For simplicity, it is enough to ask: can the state exist without people? The answer is, of course, negative; therefore, if a group of people creates a state, it means the state is the people. This is, of course, a chewed-over topic—that the state is the people, etc. But in some cases, its practical realization is difficult, because even today society or the mass media refer to some project as "state funding," "the state budget," "the state provides," etc., when all this is a beautifully packaged lie because there is no such thing as "state" money; there is only the people's (i.e., taxpayers') money;

I pose the question brought up in the title precisely because, on the one hand, the state tells us that vigilantism (taking the law into one's own hands) is not allowed, while on the other hand, processes drag on for years; and accordingly, does the state have the right to forbid me the former while failing to ensure the latter? (Sometimes, if not in most cases, I don't care what Rousseau or Voltaire wrote, even though I might know it well, because there is no one who knows anything exactly to the end; so if you have an answer to this, it is your will to trust one or the other, but I do not think the purpose of a citizen living in a state is that);

First and foremost, vigilantism—that is, an action stemming from a person and governed by their own morality—is "forbidden" if it infringes upon the rights of others; to put it simply, "violence is bad" and it cannot be justified, because it is impossible for two individuals to have the same morality regarding all issues. That is why when we are born we are given a passport that confirms our legal connection with the state—that is, with the people with whom I must be able to interact. Moreover, since I am born and it is presumed that I will grow up with their morality, it is presumed that these people have already decided moral issues on a legislative level. Accordingly, whether I want it or not, legally from birth I am deprived of the right to vigilantism, but I am given a second right: to be provided by this same people so that if my rights are violated I appeal to the court or the prosecutor's office, but under no circumstances should I try vigilantism, because law without inquisition is simply a recommendation;

 As for the issue of morality or ethics, this finds reflection in various laws, and especially in the Civil Code, where the principle of good faith is the principle of principles. But good faith is changeable; that is, as developed as society (the people) is, so what was acceptable for society yesterday may not be acceptable today. That is why the interpretation of good faith differs at different times. Accordingly, this legislative provision gives the people the right that what they have established among themselves be recognized by the court as a legislative norm, and through this path, the "rule" established by the people becomes acceptable to everyone and is applicable. Legal philosophy itself, for me, begins where any lawyer should speak of the main thing: "the state is the people" and not the other way around. I point this out because, for me as an attorney, a decision issued by a court should be written in the name of the citizens of Georgia or the people, and not in the name of Georgia, because if we do not know its foundation, it is presumed that we are governed by a "legal phantom";

Liberal and libertarian thought (which in principle for me is a subdivision of anarchist political doctrine) indicates that "the state is a necessary evil." Under necessary evil it is implied that "I give the state the right to be repressive, but it must be repressive only in exceptional cases." (Now, what German, Austrian, etc. schools call it, I will not even discuss, because there is no absolute truth in any doctrine). Repressiveness is a characteristic feature of the state, and it always tries to manage its people with a repressive method. The issue and the index of democracy lie in the fact that this repressiveness should not reach the point where "the people are given the right to rebel." I need so many explanations (my own) precisely because before I give my answer to the main question, the collision of all possible variants must be evident (in a small article, of course);

In short, the constitutional provision stating that I have the right to a fair trial (Everyone has the right to appeal to a court to protect their rights. The right to a fair and timely hearing is ensured) does not mean that this right was granted to me; rather, it is a confirmation of the right. That is, the state on the one hand indicates that I have this right, but this provision also means that "vigilantism" by a citizen is inadmissible; meaning, in order for your right to be protected—which sooner or later will definitely be violated because otherwise it is impossible—you can only restore this right through the court. In other words, the "rules of the game" were determined by the Constitution, and you obey these rules of the game because morality or immorality was decided by the Constitution in this way. Now let us take the second issue, i.e., swift justice. This right, in my opinion, is the most important during legal proceedings because a decision stretched out in time is sometimes more of a useless piece of paper than a new law issued by the court (this is indirectly indicated by the Civil Code article where a court decision is not listed in the statutory provision for the emergence of an obligation, although a court decision is always a new law since, in principle, it does not differ from a law);

 Swift justice, briefly explained, is that a party—be it the plaintiff, defendant, or the accused—should receive a decision from the court as soon as possible in such a way that a proper hearing is carried out. That is, swift justice does not exclude delaying the hearing and an objective and complete examination of evidence, but this does not mean that cases should drag on for years. For example, in a civil dispute, if the parties refuse the examination of evidence, the court will consider the evidence examined; just as if the defense makes the prosecutor's evidence undisputed. That is, the law inherently implies the main point: the speed of justice is the most important if the need for it is present. The reflection of swift justice is, for example: immediate execution when the decision of the 1st instance court does not wait for the 3rd instance and it is already enforceable, etc. The purpose of the law, on the one hand, is that if you appeal to a court, it is presumed that your right was violated and it requires quick restoration here and now, and not years later. Moreover, any developed state considers its execution as part of the court decision; that is, if the execution of the decision is not ensured by the state, it is presumed that the state is not fulfilling its purpose, and accordingly a problem is born which is initiated by the state and causes a violation of the principle of swift justice for the person;

At first glance, this principle and its implementation are very simple: the court must try to hear the case quickly and qualitatively, and issue a decision to the parties as soon as possible. But as an example, I can present a case and see how swift justice is in Georgia today, if I am deprived of vigilantism and the state does not fulfill its purpose. I have a case in production where since 2018 a property owner wants to enter their house (the issue does not concern those affected by mortgages—well, that is a completely separate issue whether being a mortgage victim even exists); I have a court decision but it has not been executed yet. I have a case in production where for two and a half years the court has not scheduled a hearing on a labor dispute. I have a dispute where a person's real estate might be realized due to a mistake by the National Bureau of Enforcement, and for a year and a half the process has not been scheduled. That is, not only me but all attorneys have such types of cases and we have no answers. Now let us return to the main point: the state tells me that as an owner I do not have the right through vigilantism to force another person out of my property, and I must appeal to the court, get a decision, and wait for the state to carry it out; but this implementation has not occurred for 3 years. If I use vigilantism—that is, for example, I decide to forcibly remove an illegally residing person from my property—then the state will use the repressive machine against me, i.e., charge me criminally; but if I follow the rules set by the state, I have to wait and I don't even know for how long;

Or let us take an even better example: in a labor dispute, if a hearing is scheduled and I do not appear, then the court will have the right to use the power granted to it and issue a default judgment, even when it had not scheduled a hearing for three years. That is, I (in this case, the client) must not resort to vigilantism, but the court has the right, if I do not appear, to completely reject my lawsuit and I will not be able to litigate it a second time. That is, the state on the one hand gives me the court instead of vigilantism, but on the other hand, "swift justice" does not happen; whereas in case of executing vigilantism, it will activate the repressive machine and call my action a "crime," but the same court will not share this reasoning because "I should have waited." Despite the fact that swift justice represents the cornerstone of the court, in my opinion, it is still not solely the property of the court, because it is primarily the property of the people who by the Constitution renounced vigilantism in exchange for swift justice. Because it is impossible for a criminal case to be heard for three years and this not be punishable, since if a person's guilt is not proven for three years, these three years are simply "humane torture" of the person;

Towards the end, regarding which is more superior: the inadmissibility of vigilantism or swift justice. Of course, the inadmissibility of vigilantism exists and will exist, and this is correct. But when the state, including the court, is unable to carry out swift justice, the court is obliged not to demand the protection of the same principle from the party. Also, if a party cannot get the swift execution of a court decision, the persons responsible for this must definitely be responsible before the law, because the "legal phantom"—which in reality is the citizens of this state—deserve this. And if swift justice is impossible, then the existence of vigilantism in some dose must be justified; while the judge must have a sense of justice that they, as a branch of government, failed to ensure speed, which in turn caused vigilantism, meaning the state is also responsible for this just as much as the person who created the vigilantism;

I recall a case when Strasbourg found Georgia guilty because "Georgia" failed to ensure swift justice and the criminal trial was ongoing for 5 years. But the most interesting thing here is that Strasbourg itself made this decision 6 years after receiving the complaint. So sometimes, justice as a natural phenomenon is better than all legal casuistry;