I advocate a position in western justice which recognizes a “vigilante” or a “criminal idealist” as an agent of justice, subject to criminal law.
It would certainly continue the promise that no one is to be above the law. No one is absolved of going to court. But this treatment would allow for defense of criminal actions beyond the insanity or innocence pleas. The defendant would absolutely be required to plead guilty for the first part. You admit to the crime and then reason your intention behind it.
Any deviation from law demands a punishment because otherwise there’d be little motivation for anyone to obey the law. But a sentence could be reduced on the basis that the action was warranted by the criminal’s motive to deliver a rational justice.
In other words: “I did it because the police were not going to” now becomes a rational defence, given that there can be substantial evidence for a crime that was receiving justice from the justice-motivated-criminal against criminal.
It would be a way of saying that crime and punishment cannot be left so distinct and simple, when there is crime-punishment. An example of the necessity for such an action is, say, that the vigilante has personal evidence for the crime which cannot be immediately reproduced. But given that some evidence can eventually be produced, the vigilante can then receive a reduced sentence.
Can you imagine situations where this can solve more problems than it creates?
On the whole, would you disagree?