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

Request: Obviously, I'd like to debate in Lincoln Douglas format as per the National Forensics League guidelines. Any failure not to do so voids the debate. Let's keep it fun you guys :]. Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. I offer the following definitions: *Vigilantism: a volunteer organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate) [[Merriam-Webster]] *Justified: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable [[Merriam-Webster]] * Government: the agency through which a political unit exercises authority classified according to the distribution of power within it [[Merriam-Webster]] *Enforce: to carry out effectively [[MW]] *Law: a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority [[MW]] OBS 1- In a government that has failed to enforce the law, as the resolution implies, the specific flaw of not being able to enforce laws comes down to governmental power. It is the affirmative's burden to prove that vigilantism is justified; when the government can properly enforce laws, debate will become extra-resolutional and it will not become necessary to justify vigilantism. My value for today's round is justice. Black's Law Dictionary defines justice as the "proper administration of the laws in order to provide each man with his or her due. Justice should be looked at in today's round because not only is the resolution explicitly asking if vigilantism is justified, but because justice ensures a functioning society by providing for proper enforcement of the law. My criterion for today's round is governmental legitimacy. A legitimate government is one that effectively enforces policies or standards set out within itself, such as laws, but furthermore one that runs efficiently and is free of corruption. Governmental legitimacy should be used in today's round because the legitimacy of a government is most important to any society with a government in place, as the resolution implies. Therefore, in order for the government to function properly, we must look out for its legitimacy. Governmental legitimacy best upholds justice because with a legitimate government, it is possible to uphold the justice a government set forth to provide for, and therefore, a justified decision. Contention 1 - Vigilantism reforms the government SpA: Being able to enforce the law comes down to multiple different powers within a government. Therefor, to fail to enforce the law means a systematic failure of a government is occurring. In order to provide for a once again legitimate government, any citizen of that government must act in a way to reform the government. By affirming the resolution, vigilantes act to reform the government. In a theoretical sense, vigilantes act as a tool, a magnifying glass so to speak, to point out the problems within the government. When the burden to enforce the law falls on vigilantes, vigilantes will then seek out situations to enforce the law. A failed government uses a vigilante as this tool in order to recognize the problems and failures current within that government. When a vigilante points out a failure, governments can step in in order to enforce that law or resolve a failed situation; leading to reformation. When a government has been properly reformed, the legitimacy of a government has been secured by vigilantes and thus, vigilantes are justified. SpB: Whether or not the acts of vigilantism are seen as good or bad, vigilantes still act in a way to reform the government. Regardless of whether or not vigilantes act in good accord, the end result is good. When a vigilante does good act by upholding a law, not only does he help the government in law enforcement, but he outlines where the lack of enforcement is. When a vigilante does bad, this too outlines where lack of enforcement is, but moreso where corruption might exist. It is the presence of a vigilante that outlines the flaws within a government, therefor even the worst of vigilantes would work towards a more legitimate government and are thus justified. The reformation of a government is the end result which is good, and when the government is reformed, it can now enforce the law. By reforming the government, vigilantes do indeed provide for the legitimacy of the government because now the new government can enforce the laws within its society, providing for justice. Contention 2 - Vigilantism is cost-effective. One key benefit when compared to the normal system of government is that vigilantism is cost-effective. Kelly Hine explains: Kelly D. Hine, "Vigilantism Revisited: An Economic Analysis of the Law of Extra-Judicial Self-Help or Why Can't Dick Shoot Henry for Stealing Jane's Truck?", The American University Law Review, Volume 47, 1998. Private enforcers, such as vigilantes, enjoy a tremendous cost advantage over public enforcers. Vigilantes are not salaried, they do not require extensive training, and they generally keep capital expenditures to a minimum. Vigilantes also enjoy the benefits of increased familiarity with their victimizers. This familiarity should make apprehension easier, thereby lowering the cost of enforcement. The cost savings vigilantes enjoy actual create an incentive to carry out more good work. Because vigilantism can only be rewarding if a situation is justified widely rather than personally justified, vigilantes have an incentive to do two things. First, vigilantes will want to carry out more better, morally right actions, thus preventing violence and detriment to a society and thus legitimizing the government. But secondly, this provides for an incentive to carry out law enforcement in the first place because of those incentives to do good, an indeed justified act. Therefor, you best provide for governmental legitimacy by carrying out the enforcement of the government that currently does take place, providing for justice. Contention 3- Vigilantism acts as a deterrence In order to effectively stop crime, crime must be deterred to prevent it from ever occurring. Vigilantism can act in a way to deter crime before it even begins. Kelly Hine explains again: Kelly D. Hine, "Vigilantism Revisited: An Economic Analysis of the Law of Extra-Judicial Self-Help or Why Can't Dick Shoot Henry for Stealing Jane's Truck?", The American University Law Review, Volume 47, 1998. 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. Because the job of vigilantism can be dangerous, vigilantes act in a way that avoids direct confrontation with a criminal. The easiest way to do this is by creating deterrence. Furthermor; when a government has failed to enforce the law, it cannot offer these deterrence to prevent crime. When this occurs, crimes become a rampant problem and therefor, the need for vigilantes to offer deterrence and law enforcement becomes evident. By stopping crime, affirming the resolution effectively provides for the legitimacy of a government because by not only allowing the government to focus on reforming itself, but by carrying out law enforcement to further allow the reformation of a government by pointing out the problem, as outlined previously.