Maybe part of the problem is that we depend on the government more than we should for protection.
(I have told this story before on IDW) The only case of child molesting I knew about as a child was when a man was caught in the act. Before the Sheriff could get the judge to sign a warrant, the suspect was found floating in the river!! To my knowledge there was NO follow up investigation. Problem solved.

@Serg97

If you can only imagine the current government to be the only government possible, then you may not fully appreciate the example of actual government that you describe.

If someone volunteers to defend innocent people, and does so effectively, who is to say that the case was not a perfect example of the law power, justified, in fact?

One of the frauds that work to convince the dupes that they must pay the protection fee demanded by despots running counterfeit governments is this claim that the law can only be employed by anointed, exclusive, members of the despotic gang.

Phrases like "he took the law into his own hands," is an example of this fraud at work.

See for an explanation of real government the following messages:

Page 42
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty

"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

As can be seen, is common sense. When the only one around is a private individual in a case where defense is needed and justified, there is no need to delay in effectively creating that defense. For members operating a Profitable Monopoly (enforced by criminal means) the gate to membership is firmly closed, and the force of competition is rendered null and void. Competition in all free markets tend to force quality up and cost down. Profitable Monopolies work when competition is removed, and the tendency then is a steady lowering of quality while costs steadily increase.

@Josf-Kelley You appear to be highly educated, at least you write like you are. For those of us who live by common sense, can you state your position in three sentences or less? I understand how legal justice and street justice are different, and properly applied can be equally effective!!

@Serg97

"...can you state your position in three sentences or less?"

Justice is factual, and a test to determine justice is offered in Mathew 7:12 the Golden Rule. If people do unto others what they themselves will fight tooth and nail to avoid having the same done to themselves, then that is demonstrably not justice.