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

I affirm: Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. I offer the following resolutions from Black's Law Dictionary and Merriam Webster: Vigilantism: The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals. Justified: proven or shown to be just, right, or reasonable Enforce: To give force or effect to; to compel obedience to I offer the following resolution analysis. First Observation: The resolution asks a question concerning vigilantism as a general principle. This is because the resolution chooses to include the word "vigilantism" with the suffix "-ism" in order to demonstrate a principle. Thus, arguments in this debate must concern the general and basic principle of vigilantism first and foremost. Second Observation: The resolution refers to the terms specific in context: The Resolution states that "the government has failed to enforce the law." Note that this is not a specific law but rather a universal concept binding all laws together. This is because of the usage of the article "the" in front of "law". The Negation therefore must recognize the government has failed to uphold the universal concept of law, instead of a single, unique law. Third Observation: Justification in the debate refers to being proven or shown to be just, right, or reasonable. Because law is not enforced, then any argument relating to the legitimacy of government cannot be considered valid in the context of this debate. In the resolution, the government has had its justification revoked by the addition of the "failed to enforce the law" condition. Thus, we cannot look to arguments concerning the legitimacy of government. Therefore, we must realistically look to other sources of justification. I offer a value of justice for this debate. I define justice as Aristotle did, "giving each his due". This is the most legitimate value for this debate because of the resolution giving the condition of lack of law enforcement and also the main focus point of vigilantism, which is a principle regarding the citizens' enforcement of law. Law at its most basic and universal concept has always been the maximization of justice. In order to achieve justice, societies have relied on law and the enforcement of law. Vigilantism also seeks to achieve justice through the private implementation of law. Justice as a value also provides the means to "justification", which is explicitly stated in the resolution. The definition of justified is "proven to be just, right, and reasonable". Justice, which is giving each his due, fulfills each and every one of these qualifications of justification. As a means of achieving my value, I offer a value criterion of protecting autonomy. Autonomy, by the definition of philosopher Immanuel Kant, is the right to self-government. It refers to the capacity of the rational individual to make an informed, rational decision. Preserving individual autonomy--including the ability to exercise discretion in going after villains--is a necessary route to justice when the government has failed to enforce the law. Autonomy precedes any sort of societal or law-and-order consideration, because it is the foundation of human rights and societal order. Thus the justice and law system has always worked to preserve autonomy. However, in the condition of the absence of law enforcement as presented in the resolution, the burden of the protection of autonomy falls to the individual people themselves. Thus, because of the prior resolution analysis, and because of realistic implications in the realm of the debate, autonomy proves to be the legitimate means of achieving justice. I offer two contentions. Contention one: Vigilantism protects autonomy. Vigilantism is the act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals. From the definition of vigilantism as defined by the definitive law dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, we see that vigilantism places the role of the enforcement of justice into the individual's hands. The individual then is granted the autonomy of the enforcement of justice as a vigilante. Under normal conditions in society, there exists the government, which according to Max Weber, one of the most influential political economists, owns the monopoly of legitimate force in the enforcement of justice. However, in the condition described by the resolution, that monopoly is broken up and the legitimacy of force is given to the people. Since one of the roles of the government was to protect autonomy, autonomy still has to be protected in order to enforce justice. Thus, vigilantism in the condition of the resolution is the force that drives the protection of autonomy because it is the people themselves that own the autonomy and thus have to protect it. Therefore, the act of a citizen apprehending and punishing suspected criminals, or "vigilantism" is done in the manner to protect autonomy and thus achieve justice. Contention two: Vigilantism legitimizes and restores the government, thus protecting autonomy. Suzette Heald, writing in an article titled "State, Law, and Vigilantism in Northern Tanzania," found in the April 2006 edition of African Affairs, describes the history and impact of the sungusungu. She explains:" From the early 1980s onwards in central Tanzania, Sukuma and Nyamwesi villagers began to organize their own form of collective policing which became known throughout Tanzania as sungusungu. Over time, these groups, which initially by-passed the official agents of state, far from being rejected, have become an integral part of the administrative structures of vast areas of rural Tanzania." In regards to the effect on the government of Tanzania, she adds, "The sungusungu have come to operate in a distinctive space; co-opting government and, in turn, co-opted by it. A new vision of community responsibility is heralded and held out as an ideal. In the same way, perhaps, they have reformed and reclaimed the state, with the administration demonstrating an increasing responsiveness to the priorities of local communities and allowing them a greater degree of autonomy in the management of their own affairs." The solution to the lawless condition described the resolution is the protection of autonomy. Because vigilante communities such as the sungusungu demonstrate a greater exercise in the protection of autonomy, they also provide legitimacy in law enforcement. This is because legitimacy and autonomy are inherently linked. This legitimacy helps to restore order to the state, and ultimately bring across justice in the form of protecting autonomy.