Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law

Batman once said: "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Because vigilantes often embody the latter, I negate the resolution. Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. To clarify the debate, I offer the following definitions: Vigilantism: As defined by Black's Law dictionary, "The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals" This is the best definition of vigilantism and a vigilante because Black's law dictionary is a respected law dictionary used by lawyers, and since we are talking about the law, it is the best source. Fails: To fall short of expectations. My value for this resolution is justice, which is defined as giving each their due. My value criterion is protection of rights. In order to achieve justice, we must maximize the protection of rights because everyone is due his or her rights. Contention 1. Vigilantism is not justified because of the harms it does to a society. Subpoint A: Vigilantes act based on perception. A vigilante does not have the necessary resources to determine who is guilty, and who is innocent. All a vigilante can do is punish those they BELIEVE are guilty of a crime. In addition, vigilantism often results in a disproportionate response. The American Chronicle states: "Vigilantism has taken root in Latin America over the past decade…angry crowds are increasingly taking the law into their own hands, meting out physical punishment for crimes real and imagined. Vigilantes often lynch common criminals who, in their view, have escaped justice." In Responsibility and Punishment, J. Angelo Corlett explains the cause of disproportionate punishment: "What makes vigilantism morally wrong is that it violates a fundamental fairness that relies on a due process system to determine…guilt from innocence…But the vigilante cares not about such fairness…Justice and fairness dictate that due process rights ought to be upheld for the accused so that a determination of her guilt or innocence…might be determined…Even should the vigilante capture and "punish" a genuine offender…it would most likely be…out of luck, rather than as the result of careful and diligent investigative trial process…" As John Locke states, "Men cannot be judges of themselves", indicating that bias exists in personal perceptions and would lead to injustice when trying criminals. Subpoint B: There are no checks on a vigilante. Within a government, there are checks prevent abuse. However, the vigilante has no such checks. Even if a vigilante group started out well, the lack of checks would eventually allow the vigilantes to abuse their power and become corrupt. In Managua, Nicaragua, in 1997, a group vigilantes formed to protect the citizens from violence that was happening. At first, everything was great. However, just a short 5 years later in 2002, fighting occurred within the members of the vigilante group and innocents died as a result of this violence. It turned out that drugs had corrupted these vigilantes and as one vigilante put it, "We couldn't care less about the people. What do they matter to us?" Clearly, the lack of checks will allow vigilantes to eventually abuse their power. Contention 2. There are practical reasons for a government's failure to enforce the law. Subpoint A) The government has limited resources. The government does not have the resources to pursue every criminal and criminal case. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 94% of all felony convictions happens as a result of plea bargaining. Plea bargaining happens when government chooses to let criminals go in exchange for information that would bring a more dangerous criminal to justice. To affirm today would be saying that vigilantes are justified in pursuing those that the government has CHOSEN not to prosecute. This would undermine a legitimate government. Subpoint B) If vigilantes responded, justice would be undermined. Since failure is defined as to fall short of expectations, victims of the criminal who was not punished by the government, due to plea bargaining, would consider this a failure. These victims would then resort to vigilantism and go after that criminal. This would prevent future criminals from plea bargaining because the criminals would fear being attacked. Therefore, the government would therefore not be able to uphold the greater justice in society. Opponent's case: In my opponent's observation one, he states that we cannot use examples like the KKK because they did not act to enforce laws. This however, is not true. The KKK sought to enforce Jim Crow Laws, which, at one point and time was part of governmental laws. Contention 1 My opponent makes the claim that only vigilantes can uphold justice, this however, is not true for 4 reasons: 1. Vigilantes could very well be enforcing unjust laws (such as the fugitive slave laws back in the 1800s). This would clearly not promote justice. 2. In plea bargaining, the government chooses to let a few criminals go in order to ensure greater justice. Since vigilantes are so focused on their own little world, they fail to see this greater justice that the government is trying to achieve. And when vigilantes go after the criminals that the government has chosen to let go, they are undermining the government and preventing future plea bargains. 3. Law abiding citizens and vigilantes are two different things. Vigilantes punish suspected criminals who may be innocent. this would clearly violate justice. A law abiding citizen, on the other hand, would simply follow the law and give information to the police about possible criminals. 4. Because of the lack of checks, vigilantes will eventually go bad. If we open the door for a vigilante response, we cannot close that door when vigilantes turn bad. Contention 2 My opponent uses the social contract (Locke's) to justify vigilantism. This however is faulty for 4 reasons: 1. Locke supported revolution, not vigilantism. He stated that citizens have the right to overthrow a failing government, not resort to vigilantism. 2. Nowhere in the Social contract does it say a person can harm another innocent person. Since vigilantes do not use due process, there is nothing to ensure innocents are not being harmed. 3. Locke himself is against vigilantism. In his book, Two Treatises of Government, he states: "It is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, that self love will make men partial to themselves and their friends...and revenge will carry them too far in punishing others..." 4. Self protection and vigilantism are two different ideas. Self protection involves a person protecting themselves from harm whereas vigilantism involves a citizen apprehending and punishing a SUSPECTED criminal. Contention 3 My opponent states that vigilantism is necessary to maintain justice in less structured societies. This simply, is not true. If we look at any Latin American country we will not find cases of vigilantes helping the situation, we only find cases of vigilantes making the situation worse. This is true for 2 reasons: 1.The Juarez Citizens Command Vigilante group of Mexico has sworn to kill a criminal a day, and have been leaving the heads of those they killed in ditches (American Chronicle). Since justice is defined (Aristotle) as giving each their due, killing people without a proper trial does not protect rights and does not lead to justice. Since my opponent fails to meet his own value and VC, we must negate the resolution. 2. Vigilantes will only add fuel to fire, and make it harder for the police and the government to enforce laws. When vigilantes wrongly punish people of crimes, citizens will not only have to worry about the criminal, but they will also have to worry about the vigilantes. In this case, the proper response is gov't reform, not vigilantism.