Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

[I would like to debate this in LD format] [This is my first debate on this site] Aidan W. Brady Mr. Vialpando Debate March 18, 2009 "Vigilantism arose from practical needs in the absence of foundations regulating social order. Their tactics solved a disorder problem and served as a symbol that [there would be] no opportunity for erosion of values inherent to a civilization." . Because I agree with author William C. Culberson ( (Vigilantism: Political History of Private Power in America, Greenwood Publishing, 1990, p.2 ) that there are times when civilization and social order require enforcement of law even when government fails , I affirm the resolution: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. The Value for the round is Justice as prescribed by the resolution. Justice is defined here by the platonic definition of giving each his due. This means that both criminal and victim must be given their due to achieve justice. Where the government cannot punish the criminal and attempt to give the victim justice, it is justifiable for others to step in to do so. Thus the criterion for the round is the proportional allocation of punishment and reward. That means that each person deserves what they are due, which is sometimes referred to as ‘just deserts.' The resolution promotes justice because it provides all involved their just deserts. Contention 1. As a last resort, vigilantism promotes justice for criminals When the government fails to enforce the law, vigilantism is often the only way for a criminal to have any negative consequence result from his crimes. The former police commissioner of Mumbai, India (D S Soman) agrees and is quoted in The Times of India saying: "People are not averse to taking the law into their own hands since they believe that if they do not punish the criminal, he will get off scot-free after getting bail. It indicates the failure of the government machinery in tackling the situation." Sen and Natu, March 7, 2005 "Is Vigilante Justice Justified? The Time of India. Dr. Tom O'Connor at Austin Peay State University acknowledges this when he writes: "The vigilante is no avenger. The vigilante simply wants punishment, or just deserts.." VIGILANTISM, VIGILANTE JUSTICE, AND SELF-HELP, August 2007 http://www.apsu.edu... Program Manager of CJ and Homeland SecurityDirector, Institute for Global Security Studies Austin Peay State University Ctr. at Ft. Campbel When the government fails to provide the criminal with his just deserts, vigilantism furthers justice for the criminal and that's why it is justified. Contention 2. The resolution promotes justice for victims When the government fails to enforce the law, the victim suffers a second injustice. The second injustice is the failure to recognize the first injustice and to respond appropriately to it. Professors Tripp, Bies and Aquino support this in their article "A Vigilante Model of Justice: Revenge, Reconciliation, Forgiveness, and Avoidance". At the core of our argument is that victims want justice (Bies, 2001; Bies and Tripp, 1996). Victims want to see offenders punished, and possibly to have restored whatever was taken away from them, whether it be their money, their sense of law and order in the organization, or even their reputation (Bies and Tripp, 1996; Darley and Pittman, 2003; Hogan and Emler, 1981). If such justice can be delivered by the organization, or by the offender, then there is no rational need for the victim to seek justice through revenge. Thomas J. Tripp, Robert J. Bies and Karl Aquino. Social Justice Research 20.1 (March 2007): p10(25). When the government fails to provide the victim with her just deserts, vigilantism acknowledges the wrongdoing done to the victim and sets the stage for forgiveness and reconciliation. This furthers justice for all involved and that's why it is justified. Contention 3: Used as a last resort, vigilantism promotes justice for society When there is justice for criminals and victims, there is increased justice for society as a whole. First, there is increased deterrence against crime, which provides a more safe and secure society. Safety and security are part of society's just deserts. Kelly D. Hine points out in The American University Law Review that "Vigilante justice" fills the law enforcement void. Before the vigilante action, the probability of incurring sanctions for criminal activity was negligible. With the vigilance committee on patrol, this probability increases dramatically. By reintroducing the possibility of apprehension and punishment, the vigilante enforcer provides significant levels of deterrence to society's criminal element. [vol. 47] 1998 VIGILANTISM REVISITED: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LAW OF EXTRAJUDICIAL SELF-HELP OR WHY CAN'T DICK SHOOT HENRY FOR STEALING JANE'S TRUCK? Second, society gets its just deserts when criminals and victims get justice. Professors Rosenbaum and Sederburg support this conclusion when they state: "If a vigilante's actions are in fact a rational response to a failure of the established criminal justice system, if the vigilante bases his actions on an accurate perception of social need, and if he keeps the imposed sanction within socially tolerable bounds, then the vigilante has provided a social "good." Jon Rosenbaum & Peter C. Sederburg Comparative Politics, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Jul., 1974), pp. 541-570 In a utopian world, the police would enforce all laws, but under the resolution since they are failing in this duty, vigilantism can be used to promote justice where there otherwise would be none. Contention 4: In the absence of government enforcement, vigilantism becomes a justifiable option Although the resolution does not require the affirmative to prove that vigilantism is the ONLY justified response when the government fails to enforce the law, there are often few other alternatives to achieve justice. Philip Perlmutter put it well when he wrote: "In a democracy, citizens rightfully have a number of options. They can accept dangers, and do little, hoping that things will somehow improve. Second, they can defend themselves through legitimate, or illegitimate activities, hoping to bring about change. Third, they can retaliate with physical force against the oppressive environment. Last, they can emigrate - the smart but difficult option for poor or average citizens. For any human being, there is not, nor should there be, only one response, especially the one prescribed by the non-afflicted, whose sense of justice is too often contaminated by their distance from injustice. How can one say to let the police handle the problem of law and order when the police themselves admit the problem is beyond them, even with their guns, jails, and specialized training?" Although Perlmutter discusses a democracy, citizens have even fewer choices outside a democracy. Where vigilantism is used as a last resort by groups who have considered their response, it presents the best option for citizens to achieve justice. Philip Perlmutter "A Look at American Vigilante" CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITER 1985 In fact, Kelly D. Hine says vigilantism may be the only option. "When an established governmental system for enforcing the criminal law does not exist, the only means available to protect Becarria's "repository of the public well being" is private action. Classical vigilantism on the American frontier epitomizes such private action. In the absence of an established law enforcement system, the social wealth explanation for vigilantism is straight forward. Under these circumstances, nothing but the threat of harm from the victim provides incentives for individuals to forego crime.'