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

I affirm the resolution. Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. For clarity, I propose the following definitions: Vigilantism: Neil Jarman, author of Vigilantism, Transition, and Legitimacy, writes: vigilantism...involves actions that can be characterized both as forms of policing and as forms of justice...vigilante activities are primarily a response to a perceived failure of the criminal justice system to suitably punish offenders and are therefore described as a form of popular or informal justice. In other cases vigilantism involves more public forms of policing activities that are designed to act as a deterrent or to prevent something happening...Recent work by Ray Abrahams and Les Johnston [many] have noted that it is not necessarily illegal or unlawful nor is it carried out as a challenge to the state or the formal criminal justice system. Instead both authors highlight the fact that vigilantism involves activities carried out because of a real...failure of the state to deliver on its claims to hold a monopoly in managing law and order and delivering justice. Justified: To prove or show to be reasonable The law: the collective rules established by the government including those of due process For this resolution, the affirmative would value Justice, which is here defined as giving each their due. Each person's due would be their rights. Therefore, this value can be upheld by the value criterion maximizing protection of rights. Protection of rights is the best value criterion for justice because when we are protecting the rights of people, we are achieving justice. Contention 1. Vigilantism is justified in the situation outlined by the resolution. Subpoint A: When the government has failed to enforce its laws, it has broken a social contract. By failing to uphold the law, the government has also failed to uphold its duty to its citizens. When a society comes together and forms a government, they are doing it so that they would gain three things: the law, judges to adjudicate laws, and the executive power necessary to enforce these laws. By forming a government, the people of the society give up their individual right of protection to the government. However, because the government is failing in its duty, citizens have the right to take the law into their own hands and enforce the law. Professor Edgar C. Polome of the University of Texas explains this clearly when he writes: "Vigilantism itself is based on the social contract, specifically, that government is obligated to protect life, liberty, and property, in exchange for loyalty and obedience from its citizens. If, however, government fails to provide those protections, the citizens…can invoke the age-old law of private justice." In cases where the government has failed to enforce the law, it is often the poor, the minorities, and the people on the margins that tend to bear the brunt of this failure. Because these people lack the resources to bring change within the government, vigilantism must be justified as an allowable response to government failure in order for these people to protect the rights that the government has denied. Subpoint B: Vigilantism promotes popular sovereignty, a fundamental facet of any government. Andrew Taslitz writes in the Ohio Criminal Law Review, Vigilantes are rooted in an ideology of popular sovereignty: the people or communities are the real sovereigns; whenever those to whom they have delegated authority fail. It is the people's right to take back that authority into their own hands. This ideology is the generally not anti-state, for: vigilantism commonly thrives on the idea that the state's legitimacy at any point in time depends on its ability to provide citizens with the levels of law and order they demand." Vigilantism is thus "often a vote of no confidence in state efficiency rather than in the concept of the state itself." In upholding the law themselves, vigilante groups are reinforcing the ideas of popular sovereignty, while simultaneously upholding the law of the land and backing up the government. Contention 2: Vigilantism benefits the society. Subpoint A: The actions of vigilantes deter crime. When vigilante groups are actively enforcing the law, they put a check on the criminal activity happening. The Guardian Angels, a vigilante group formed in February 1979 by Curtis Sliwa in response to New York City subway crime, is a non-violent group. These vigilantes are unarmed but are trained and capable of physically intervening. The aim of the Guardian Angels is to enforce the law by being present and visible. The Chebucto Community Net clarifies, "All Guardian Angels have an extensive three month training program…the goal is not to instigate physical altercations, but to try to prevent crime in the first place. The angels are trained in how to mitigate situations so they don't escalate." Clearly, when vigilante groups effectively organize themselves, they are able to deter crime and thus protect rights. Subpoint B: Vigilante groups fill in the "hole" in society that is left by the failing government. When the government of a society fails to uphold its duty in enforcing laws and maintaining order, a gap is left in the society. Vigilante groups are able to step in and fill in this "hole" left by the government. These vigilante actions would be directed at a particular goal. When most governments are trying to a variety of issues, vigilante groups are aimed at fixing particular issues, and consequently their actions are directed and have definite goals. In the Eastern Cape of South Africa, the government has neglected to care for the township of Port Elizabeth because of the few people who live there. The vigilante group, the Amadlozi, have organized themselves to use a quasi-courtroom style of vigilantism. This group is able to gather together and determine whether or not a suspect is guilty of a crime, as well as how the suspect should be punished. The community at large is also present at these gatherings and view the Amadlozi as legitimate, and effective. The Negative may try and paint a picture of anarchy and chaos that feeds a media driven and fear based concept of vigilantism. However, actual study of vigilantism around the globe paints a much different picture. True vigilantism embraces the law and social order…it strives for justice.