Zastrozzi, The Master of Discipline

Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to be able to see the final performance of the Mercer Theater's version of "Zastrozzi, the Master of Discipline." This play had, as one of its themes, the notion that everyone should be judged for their crimes, with the main character, Zastrozzi, taking this upon himself. In effect, this atheist becomes God, punishing sinners for their transgressions. Setting aside the irony for a moment, this brings up an interesting question: to whom are men responsible when they commit crimes?

By becoming the force that judges men, Zastrozzi seems to make the statement that a crime is a crime; he pursues one particular man with a single-minded devotion that is often confused with madness. More than this, however, he seems to believe that men should be answerable to the men they harm; they shouldn’t expect to wait until their arrival in heaven before they are judged. This implies that laws and morals are human creations, rather than being divinely inspired.

The play also focuses heavily on themes of revenge; in this moment, Nietzsche’s abyss (and its tendency to stare) is called to mind. The play is clearly meant to be a warning against the dangers of allowing revenge to consume you, but more than that, it shows that a man who can focus on revenge at the expense of all else is no different from the man who was able to commit the crime in the first place.
This means that the judge is the same as the judged; what does this say about laws? Does this mean that laws (a human invention, which must be enforced by humans) can be broken in the pursuit of one who has broken laws? If this is the case, who will judge the man who, just recently, was the agent of righteousness (or, at the very least, human punishment)?