Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

To be a vigilante you must meet the requirements stated in my observation. If you do not meet one of the requirements, then you are not a vigilante. For example, the vigilantes in the Neighborhood Watch Program are members of an organized committee, they are established members of the community, they proceed with definite goals, and not with the intension of random violence, and they act as a last resort because of failure of the established law system. I found this information at the American University Law Review, which is the oldest/largest student-run publication at American University, Washington College of Law. It has many submissions from professors, judges, practicing lawyers, and renowned thinkers. Many lawyers even use this resource; it is definitely warranted. Again, you have repeated that the government is bound to the Constitution, they have checks and balances, they have due process, and there main goal is to provide citizens with their fundamental rights, but you are still failing to answer my question: What makes these systems just? What ensures you that these rights that they are trying to provide us with are just. Even if the vigilantes don't go through all these systems it doesn't make them any less just then the government. How is the government more just than vigilantism if they try to provide unjustified rights? Vigilantism is distinct from mob justice because it is solely concerned with the maintenance of the law. Also, I've stated before the governmental powers are just as likely to be abused as the vigilantes. A corrupt group of government official could also be in this imaginary situation and be considered to be a mob. Also, vigilantes are not necessarily violent. Vigilantism is not cowboy justice. It is very unlikely for things to get so out of hand as this imaginary situation you have come up with. Vigilantes don't try to create trouble, they try to enforce the law and punish criminals. And again, with the argument that I've been making throughout the round, what makes these things that the government has that vigilantes do not justified? And yet another time, the vigilantes would not try to gain ultimate authority over the people they are trying to help the society, not hurt it. And again, I found this information at the American University Law Review, which is the oldest/largest student-run publication at American University, Washington College of Law. It has many submissions from professors, judges, practicing lawyers, and renowned thinkers. Many lawyers even use this resource; it is definitely warranted. Your question makes no sense at all. The example would definitely have relevance with the resolution because the government has failed to enforce a law, so the criminal is still free. The vigilante is helping to enforce the law, by reporting the criminal. I am not saying that the government is unjust, I am simply saying that the government is not enforcing the law with any more justice than a classic vigilante. You repeat over and over again that the government has a Constitution to help them enforce the laws justly, but WHAT MAKES THE CONSTITUTION JUST? When the country was founded, British Common Law applied to Jury Trial and the jury had the power to "nullify" a law it felt unjust or unjustly applied by refusing to convict. So if this was possible, you can know that the Constitution is not always justified, since the jury could legally nullify unjust laws. (Also, FYI neither side could win if either of us believed that the law was unjust, because both sides are enforcing the LAW.) In response to you reasons why the Constitution would be more just: A.) What makes consistence just? B.) What makes the constituents just? C.) How did the creators of the Constitution know what rights to protect and where to put the power? If an innocent is released from prison, it will be widely known. The vigilantism isn't trying to punish someone that is innocent. The vigilante does not need the means of investigation, the time of getting accurate witness statements, or the resources to have a trial if they know that the person is innocent. And because they were innocent, they would be released from prison. I'm not sure that you understand what I was trying to say earlier in the round. When innocent people are put in prison, and then released the vigilante won't try to punish them. So, if the government has all these resources, then why can't they punish all the criminals in the world? Vigilantes are not the primary source that is punishing the criminals. They are enforcing the law when the government has failed to. When the government has failed to enforce the law with "all of these resources" the vigilantes can then try to enforce the law with the limited resources that they have. Also, some of the more developed vigilance committees have many resources just as the government do, so they can use their resources as well. The people that make up the government are also human beings, and the creators of the Constitution were also human beings. Again, these laws and checks aren't always just. I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about the justification for all the things that you say make the government's way of enforcing the law just. In philosophy debate, opinion matters the most. Also, I found this information at the American University Law Review, which is the oldest/largest student-run publication at American University, Washington College of Law. It has many submissions from professors, judges, practicing lawyers, and renowned thinkers. Many lawyers even use this resource; it is definitely warranted. "...we must assume that the laws being enforce are just, as vigilantes are those who enforce the law, as I have stated previously." The fact that you have just said the laws being enforced are just, and the vigilantes are those that enforce these just laws proved my point exactly. Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law. So, if they are enforcing just laws, they are just. Yes, I do understand the concept of an analogy, but your example still does not work in this debate. This example of vigilantism was justified; the man was being punished for his bad deeds. He lost the person he loved most, because of all of the people he hurt. He deserved to be punished, and punishment is not always through making the criminal pay by fines, imprisonment, or even the death penalty, but sometimes it's through punishing the people that the criminal love most. These vigilantes have definitely saved many more children, that the man would continue to do horrible things to. It is not a society's choice for the government to be biased. Why is it so easily set aside the government being biased, but not a vigilante? What's the difference? How can you say that when so many people have been charged when they were innocent? Many people have faced the death penalty for a crime they didn't do. Is that just, being punished for something you didn't do? In response to this new attack of yours, my third contention works perfectly, since I'm saying that according to the contract that the government is based on vigilantism is just, therefore vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law. Vote affirmative because vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law. My case better upholds the resolution, I haven't agreed with my opponent at all, and I have defended my case and my criterion better than my opponent. I have also justified ALL of my arguments and my criterion. My opponent has agreed with me several times, and they haven't been able to uphold and protect their case as well as I have. These are all reasons that you should vote affirmative. Thanks! :)