vigilantism is justified when government fails to act

I strongly negate the resolution: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. I offer the definitions Vigilantism occurs when a person violates the law in order to exact what they believe to be justice from criminals, because they think that the criminal will not be caught or will not be sufficiently punished by the legal system. American University of laws For this debate my value will be societal welfare. This can be defined as the well being of a society in matters of health, safety, order, and economics. My value criterion will be The Rule of Law Affirming the resolution threatens the rule of law, since it prescribes no real minimum for the government's failure to enforce its statutes. Allowing vigilantism to flourish devalues the very institution of the law, which is the closest approximation to real justice within a given society. If vigilantism is justified, similarly to the support above, the rule of law is at risk, and society is a few steps removed from anarchy. The proper response to an ineffective or apathetic government is to reform its institutions, not to tear apart the social fabric. Contention 1) Vigilantism leads to anarchy An imperfect democracy, yes, even an imperfect democracy, is still the best form of government that is known to humankind from America to Zimbabwe. The same is true of constitutions and constitutional imperfections; it is better to have rules, with some flaws, than not on have rules at all. Having and respecting rules, is what the rule of law and due process is all about. Good people sometimes, out of frustrations and accumulated disappointments and anger take the law into their own hands; they resort to what lawyers call self-help. Self-help is vigilantism; this enforcement leads to lawlessness and anarchy, because there is no set of rules. There are no dispassionate and objective arbiter or fact-finder; it is like a Basketball game without a referee. The teams may cheat or elbow each other, because there is no referee to enforce the rules. Therefore the aggrieved party becomes the judge, the committee or jury, and the executioner all in one. That is the equivalence of absolute power. We have a legal system for a reason. Who are they to decide what's wrong and right? Anything else is called anarchy, where only the strong survive. Think about it. What if I decided that your car was too noisy? So I decided to set it on fire. Would you be happy? Is that anyway to run a society. Contention 2) Vigilantism interferes with constitutional rights(attack to his second contention as well) Among the legitimate purposes of government is the punishment of those who violate the rights of others through the commission of violent or forceful acts, such as murder, rape, robbery, theft, burglary, or trespass. The Sixth Amendment reads as follows: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his Defence. But in vigilantism the offended party becomes the judge and jury and acts as they see fit for the crime. The constitutional right to an impartial trial exists no longer thus making vigilantism unjust and actually not ensuring justice. Contention 3) The Rule of Law promotes Justice (attacks his value and) We need to understand what the Rule of Law is and how to preserve it for the good of our children and the future of all humanity ... for upon the Rule of Law hang all our hopes for equal access to justice and preservation of human liberty. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said at a conference in Florida a few years ago that our Constitution and the Rule of Law it was designed to secure mean nothing without the Rules of Court by which alone the principles of justice and liberty for all can be enforced! Think about that fact for just a moment. Without Courts to enforce the Rule of Law, the U.S. Constitution is a meaningless document having no power of its own whatsoever! Nothing is more important to understanding the Rule of Law than knowing the Rules of Court the principles of due process without which the Rule of Law is an empty promise the Rules of Court by which alone we can preserve and enforce the Rule of Law for future generations. . The Rule of Law and the principles of due process are for the government of the People, by the People, and for the People! Without The Rule Of Law there is no justice. My criterion does a better job of promoting justice than my opponents. Contention 5) vigilantism threatens democracy Vigilantism has become a serious concern for government and civil society in South Africa. The problem is hard to quantify, but the largest and most recent survey conducted in 1999 in the Eastern Cape found that one in 20 people said they had personally been involved in vigilante activity and every fifth person said they would consider becoming involved. Vigilantism not only leads to an increase in the overall level of crime, but also influences how government responds to crime generally and most importantly, undermines the rule of law. The activities of vigilante groups like People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (Pagad) in the Western Cape and Mapogo-a-Mathamaga (referred to as 'Mapogo') in the Northern Province are cases in point. The activities of both these groups have seen a rise in gang related violence in the case of Pagad, and many instances of assault in the case of Mapogo. The brutal and illegal methods employed by vigilante groups have also forced reactions from the communities in which they operate, which in turn result in more crime. The key concerns are that vigilante groups take on policing and justice functions, often using violent means to illicit confessions and mete out punishment. As such, they function in opposition to the formal criminal justice system and threaten the rule of law—the foundation of any democracy. Democracy can only thrive under the rule of law. It is the role of the judicial power in each country to uphold the rule of law. In this wise, the 1996 Constitution of Cameroon states that "...the judicial power shall be independent of the executive and legislative powers...The President of the Republic shall guarantee the independence of the judicial power..."! Indeed, it is the President of the Republic who is the president of the Higher Judicial Council! Attack on his self defense claim If we allowed vigilante justice our society would be chaotic. What my opponent is describing is not vigilantism but defense of another. It is justifiable for a person to intervene and use violence if another person is being attacked. Defense of an individual occurs during an attack/rape/assault whereas vigilantism occurs after the fact. If you witness a rape or any other assault you are only allowed to use as much force that's required to stop the attacker and get the victim to safety and then call the police. Conclusion Scoietal Welfare is upheld through The Rule of Law. The Rule of Law and due process were married when America was born. This is our legal heritage. The Rule of Law asserts that men should not be trusted to govern others unless their rule is just, tempered by fixed laws to prevent tyranny, laws that stop individuals from accumulating wealth by force, laws that keep those in high office from exercising power over the populace without restraint, laws that deny the majority power to act without due regard for the rights and well-being of individuals who are a minority, laws that prevent the powerful from plundering the weak. Without the rule of law or societal welfare there is no justice, and life is