I went to see the Jodie Foster movie, Brave One, after the Wall Street Journal writer Kyle Smith (9/28 pp W11) pointed out how PC the movie is with Jodie's victim fiance an Indian-Brit doctor, the purps are three mostly-white tattooed hoodies and Jody is a Lesbian.
But all of that PC worked out fine because it moved the issues of the movie to a different dimension.
Jodie carries out a personal revenge which would never work as a movie. But the ending brings a black man onto the scene to join Jody with his vengeance and what we get is vigilantism.
To me the point of the movie is that revenge, personal or tribal of the Arab or Appalachian (Hatfields and McCoys) type is a significantly lower form of justice than vigilantism.
Vigilantism requires that the victim or the victim's relatives gather supporters among the broader non-family community. To do this requires convincing other people of the justice of the particular case.
Admittedly vigilantism is not the higher form of justice that our criminal justice system is designed to mete out. But vigilantism is definitely superior to personal or tribal revenge and we should appreciate that.
Maybe that is one reason developed nations seek multi-national forces in international military operations.
I might also note that our criminal justice system recognizes the importance of a speedy trial, a borrowing from vigilantism. Our justice system also has a possible draw-back. Vigilantism often takes account of 'prior history of crimes' which is usually excluded evidence in our criminal justice jury system.