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

"I find the idea of vigilante justice very attractive. I like the idea that the murderer decides that this person has gone too far, and nothing will happen to him unless she does something to stop him." It is because I agree with Donna Leon that I negate the resolved, vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. For clarity I offer the following definitions: Vigilantism: occurrence when a person violates the law in order to exact what they believe to be justice from criminals, because they think that the criminal will not be caught or will not be sufficiently punished by the legal system (I accept the rest of your definitions.) My value for the round shall be that of justice. Justice can be defined as the maintenance or administration of what is just based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness, and equity. Negating achieves the value of justice because of the word justified in the resolution as this word is a derivative of just or justice so this value is explicit in the resolution and any other value would be irrelevant to answering the question of the resolution as no other value would ensure people are receiving their due. Justice is a key feature of a well-based society because justice concerns the proper ordering of people and things in a society. In order to achieve justice in the resolution, it is only just that vigilantism is unacceptable in the case that the government fails to enforce the law. The value criterion for the debate is protecting rights. Vigilantism offers no protections of due process rights, no checks on cruel or unusual punishment, no liability to any outside force. We are born with certain natural rights, and we are guaranteed that these rights will be respected. Vigilantes may undermine these rights, which is unjust. Suspects--or even known criminals--are still humans, deserving of fair trials and humane treatment. My first contention is John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. In John Locke's Second Treatise he clearly states that vigilantism is not just and a civil government is the way to punish criminals. Locke said, "...it is unreasonable for Men to be Judges in their own Cases, that Self-love will make men partial to themselves and to their Friends. And on the other side, that Ill Nature, Passion and Revenge will carry them too far in punishing others. And hence nothing but Confusion and Disorder will follow.... I easily grant, that civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniencies of the state of nature, which must certainly be great, where men may be judges in their own case, since it is easy to be imagined, that he who was so unjust as to do his brother an injury, will scarce be so just as to condemn himself for it..." Thus, it leads us to believe that justice cannot be achieved through vigilantism, and vigilantism is not justified when the government fails to enforce the law. My second contention is that vigilantism is not justified because of the harms it does to a society. Sub point A: Vigilantes act based on perception. A vigilante does not have the necessary resources to determine who is guilty, and who is innocent. All a vigilante can do is punish those they suspect to be guilty of a crime. In addition, vigilantism often results in an unbalanced response. The American Chronicle states: "Vigilantism has taken root in Latin America over the past decade…angry crowds are increasingly taking the law into their own hands, meting out physical punishment for crimes real and imagined. Vigilantes often lynch common criminals who, in their view, have escaped justice." In Responsibility and Punishment, J. Angelo Corlett explains the cause of unbalanced punishment: "What makes vigilantism morally wrong is that it violates a fundamental fairness that relies on a due process system to determine…guilt from innocence…But the vigilante cares not about such fairness…Justice and fairness dictate that due process rights ought to be upheld for the accused so that a determination of her guilt or innocence…might be determined…Even should the vigilante capture and "punish" a genuine offender…it would most likely be…out of luck, rather than as the result of careful and diligent investigative trial process…" As John Locke states, "Men cannot be judges of themselves", which shows that unfairness exists in personal views and would lead to injustice when trying criminals. This clearly shows that vigilantism is biased, and vigilantism is not justified when the government fails to enforce the law. Sub point B: There are no checks on a vigilante. Within a government, there are checks to prevent injustice. However, the vigilante has no such checks. Even if a vigilante group started out well, the lack of checks would eventually allow the vigilantes to abuse their power and become corrupt. In Managua, Nicaragua, in 1997, the Luis Fanor Hernandez group, a vigilante committee formed to protect the citizens from violence that was happening. At first, they were just and fair. However, just 5 years later, fighting occurred within the members of the group and innocents died as a result of this violence. It turned out that drugs had corrupted these vigilantes and as one vigilante put it, "We couldn't care less about the people. What do they matter to us?" Clearly, the lack of checks will allow vigilantes to eventually abuse their power. So vigilantism is not justified when the government fails to enforce the law. My third contention is that vigilantism cannot be justly used to enforce unjust laws. In the United States between 1876-1965 there was something called Jim Crow laws. These state and local laws separated all public facilities between lack Americans and members of other non-white racial groups with a "separate but equal statue". If the United States failed to enforce that law the vigilantes would try to enforce it themselves. That law was not just, and if the vigilantes tried to make sure that the law was enforced their vigilantism was not justifiable. Another example is China's One-Child Policy. If a couple had more than one child and the government allowed an exemption to their case, the vigilantes would try to fine, give pressure to abort, or force sterilization upon the couple. That law also was not just, and if the vigilantes tried to make sure that the law was enforced their vigilantism was not justified. Thus, this leads us to believe that vigilantism is not justified when the government fails to enforce the law. I reject your definition of vigilantism. You failed to say how vigilantes violate the law to achieve what they believe to be justified. You also said that vigilantes try to achieve justice, but you cannot trust their judgement because they have a skewed view of justice. I accept your value and criterion. Contention 1: My problem with the Social Contract and popular sovereignty is that there is no guarantee that the vigilantes will be just. The government has things like due process, the Constitution, etc. that limit its ability to do unjust things, but with normal citizens in charge, there's no telling what they'll do. Vigilantes have a skewed view of justice, so they may think that killing a hundred people is just. If you want to protect people's rights to attain justice for them, you need the government to enforce the law instead of vigilantes. Contention 2: Vigilantism quickly exceeds the benefits by creating escalating cycles of violence and injustice. Vigilantism can rapidly become worse than the crime itself. Punishments tend to be unfair; the innocent have little protection; and quasi-criminal elements are attracted to the movement as a semi legal road for the expression of their antisocial tendencies. In addition, when law enforcement officials participate in the acts of violence, whatever moral legality the formal system of laws retained may be undermined. Vigilantes cause injustice which only cause bigger "holes" in society.