Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law

Affirmative "A government that fails to fulfill its responsibility is not a legitimate government, thus, citizens aren't obligated to recognize its legitimacy"- Famous philosopher John Locke. When you apply this statement to the current debate you can see there is no other way then to affirm the resolution; Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. My value is that of Justice. Justice being Justice being defined as the maintenance or administration of what is just based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness and equity. A conception of justice is one of the key features of society because essentially justice concerns the proper ordering of things and persons within a society. My criterion in today's debate is that of John Locke's theory of administrative justice. Essentially what the theory of administrating justice is, is that a legitimate government has the responsibility to uphold the law. However, a government that doesn't fulfill its responsibility is not a legitimate government, and citizens aren't obligated to recognize its legitimacy. Before I go further into my case I offer the following Observations and definitions to clarify my side of the debate: OBSERVATION1: Under the resolution, it is made clear that the government is not upholding the law, and this is the circumstances in many nations. In Brazil, as few as 1% of robberies are successfully investigated by the police. (Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, American Academy of Arts and Sciences) Jose Gregori, the secretary of state for human rights stated: "It is a chronically violent country. The police are not efficient, it does not fight crime, and it is violent. The justice system is very slow." From this, we can conclude that the only reasonable hope of law and order in a community such as this comes from private action. OBSERVATION 2: My second observation concerns the definition of ‘vigilantism.' Classic vigilantes, according to the American University Law Review: 1.are members of an organized committee 2.are established members of a community 3.proceed with definite goals, not with the intension of random violence 4.act as a last resort because of a failure of the established law system From this definition, we must see that true vigilantes only act to enforce laws the government can not or will not enforce. They are not revolutionaries, rather the opposite. True vigilantes strive to uphold the current legal system by preventing, deterring, or providing justice for crime. Contention 1: Contention one: Vigilantism is an extension of natural rights The concept of protecting one's own rights (as through vigilantism) must be looked at through the filter of the social contract, which is essentially an exchange between the government and its people. Locke's social contract, upon which all governing bodies are based, states that if the government upholds the laws and protects its people, the citizens will obey the law. John Locke states on Civil Government that: There is one way whereby a government may be dissolved, and that is this: When he who has the supreme executive power neglects that charge, so that the laws already made can no longer be put in execution; this is demonstratively to reduce all to anarchy, and so effectively to dissolve the government. For laws not being made for themselves, but to be, by their execution, the bonds of society to keep every part of the body politic in its due place and function. When that ceases, the government visibly ceases, and the people become a confused multitude without order or connection. Though this quote presents the extreme example of the complete dissolution of government, the concept is clear. When the government does not uphold the law, which holds society in place, private entities gain the right to uphold the law because the contract is broken. However, when the government allows criminals to escape justice through exploiting loopholes and technicalities it can be seen as the law not being enforced. Often in this case vigilantes, with the goal of due punishment, will seek retribution against the criminal because the government has failed to do so. If it is ensured that criminals will be punished justly whether it is by the government or a private entity, it is altogether a more fair system because the law will be applied equally. Contention 2: Vigilantism is a just response to a failed government What you must analyze in today's resolution is the section quoted "when the government fails to enforce the law." In further analysis of this section of the resolution, you realize that what it's asking is, is a law abiding citizen just in standing up for a law when no one else will? And the answer is a firm yes. How can you deem courageous actions in the face of wrong doing, bad? I'm not condoning killing someone for being a petty thief, which may be the case in some extreme bizarre situations. What we're arguing is, if the idea of vigilantism is just when the government fails to up hold the law. We aren't going into detail of what they should and shouldn't do; Just to say if it is, Justifiably, the right thing to do or not. And the answer is that it is. What is a citizen to do when the government is failing? Ride the government down like a sinking ship until you drown in its inefficiencies, or stand up for what is right in an effort to reestablish justice.