Vigilantism is Justified when the Government has Failed to Enforce the Law.

My opponent's definition of vigilantism comes from the American University of Law System. My definition, on the other hand, (The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals. ) comes from the Black's Law Dictionary. "Black's Law Dictionary is the definitive legal resource for lawyers, law students and laypeople alike. Edited by the world's foremost legal lexicographer, Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary is known for its clear and precise legal definitions, substantive accuracy, and stylistic clarity — making it the most cited legal dictionary in print. " (blacklawdictionary. com) My opponent claims that by limiting the debate to the United States it is easier to relate to. But, in this debate we must prove that vigilantism is or is not justified when the government has failed to enforce the law as a general rule. We cannot conditionally make vigilantism unjustified only in the United States: the resolution asks us to decide if vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law overall. Therefore my definition of government (the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states) better addresses the resolution. My opponent responds to my attack on his first contention by saying that by limiting the debate to the US the US law is at hand. There are two problems with this: 1) The debate should not be limited to the US (as explained above) 2) The resolution asks us if vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law. Essentially this means that no law is existing because a law not enforced is a law that is virtually nonexistent. So the US or international law becomes void. My opponent responds to my attack on his third contention by claiming that the death penalty would occur only when there was no doubt that the offender was guilty. However wrongful convictions can and will occur in the "imperfect democracy" that my opponent wants, so people can be convicted wrongly. He then addresses the founding fathers. I never claimed that the founding fathers were vigilantes; I said that the colonists were vigilantes. Furthermore he claims that "vigilantes avenge unpunished crimes, not unchecked criminal regimes. " However the crime was committed BY the regime BECAUSE they did not enforce the law. So basically they avenge criminal regimes. My opponent then responds to my attack on his fifth contention by saying that we have the duty from protecting that person by subduing them and holding them. However what happens if the rapist (or murderer, etc. ) has a weapon? Holding them down won't do much good: they would simply use said weapon. He then claims that my second contention is untopical through his definition of government. As discussed above my definition of government is better since it addresses the entire world as opposed to a single country. Thus you can drop his attack on my second contention. My opponent then attacks my value criterion, citing that it eventually comes down to who decides to what is justice. But, isn't that what happens present-day in the courts: the judge ultimately decides if the offender is guilty? And who votes these judges in? The people. So, essentially, the people shave the right to decide what is justice in either case, which is exactly what vigilantism is. He then supports his VC by claiming that we are protecting the rights of everyone. Really? Is that even happening now? Previously, my opponent claimed that these rights included cruel and unusual punishment. Isn't that happening now, in many cases throughout the world (Guantanamo, etc. )? Therefore you should accept my VC over my opponent's. Onto voting issues: My opponent does not attack my first or third contentions, so these can be extended throughout the round. My opponent does not respond my attacks on his second, fourth, or sixth contentions. These are therefore considered agreed upon, and his contentions are dropped. My VC better achieves justice than my opponent's because many people's rights are not even being protected now. What is the guarantee that they will be in the future? In conclusion I urge you to vote affirmative for this round.