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

martin Luther king jr. once said,"justice denied anywhere, diminishes justice everywhere. " because I agree with martin Luther king jr, I stand firmly in negation to the resolution, because vigilantism, can NEVER be justified, whether the government has failed to enforce the law, or not. I offer the following definitions: vigilantism is defined by Black's Law 8th edition the most relevant dictionary to debate on philosophy and law as,"the act of a citizen who takes the law into their own hands by apprehending and punishing "suspected" criminals. " My Value will be that of justice, with a criterion of protecting rights. justice is defined by wordnet. princeton as, "the quality of being just, impartial, or fair. " with vigilantism, not every individual entity is treated impartially, or with justice, because the vigilantes are by definition "Punishing" "Suspected" criminals. not every vigilante could have possibly graduated from law school, so they couldn't possibly, as a whole, take the necessary means to punish the "suspected" criminal. protecting rights, is key when getting the correct perception of justice, vigilantism offers no protections of 1. ) due process rights, 2. ) no checks on cruel or unusual punishment, and 3. ) no accountability to any exterior force. "Suspects", or even known criminals are still humans, and deserving of fair trials and humane treatment, because in the end, you may find out that these suspected criminals are not even guilty. observation 1There are several problems with this. First off, if the individual is allowed to decide when laws are not being upheld, they can basically justify their vigilantism anytime they want. You then run into the problem of degrees. If I decide the government did not do its job when it found the murderer of my son guilty, but did not imprison him to death, I am then justified in rectifying the government "error. " To further prove my point, I now offer the following contentions Contention 1- vigilantes cannot punish justly, without the governmental entity to carry out due process, and enforce law, no protection of due process. - Say John Doe, Michael Johnson, Joe Smith, and Ray Lewis are all suspects in a murder case. What is a vigilante to do. .. punish all 3 of them? punish none of them? either way, no justice is served by the action of the vigilante, society's well being is only further harmed by corruption. Contention 2- the bakassi boys of Nigeria prove that vigilantism is the rationalization of crime, no checks on cruel and unusual punishment. - The other day I saw on television the news of an armed robber apprehended by the police a few hours after the crime was committed. He was charged, sent to jail, and the police closed the case. It got me thinking about my home country Nigeria, and how a wave of crime took over in some cities a few years back by a group who took the law into their hands. The Bakassi Boys are a group of youths known for their anti-crime vigilantism. They came into being in the late 1990s, and, in addition to being armed with machetes, guns and charms , they were officially supported and financed by the state government. They operate in eastern Nigeria, in West Africa, and they are sometimes accused of illegal activity and human rights abuses, yet they still enjoy popular support from the government and most of the citizens. This is because the people are tired of the police taking bribes and failing to fight the massive crime wave in the area. They hunted down criminals, cutting off their limbs for stealing, and burning suspected rapists, and murderers alive with a tire attached to their necks. Judge, the bakassi boys fall under the definition of vigilantism, and while the government, the people, and even themselves believed that they were doing justice, you must realize how skewed their perception of justice had become. they think because they are punishing criminals, they are doing justice, but the ends obviously do not justify the means, judge we must stop the rationalization of crime and it starts with a negative ballot. Contention 3- With vigilantism, privacy is deteriorated, and no justice is served, no accountability to any exterior force. -- Justice is either defined as, "impartiality," or, "giving every citizen what is due to them. " since the resolution clearly states justified, we must be debating on a proposition of justice. vigilantism is defined as, "the act of a citizen who takes the law into their own hands by apprehending, and punishing "suspected" criminals. if we must treat every single citizen impartially to justify vigilantism, every single law breaker will be apprehended and punished by a vigilante. seeing as how some specific drugs are illegal, and most people use them in the privacy of their own confinement, a vigilante would not only be required to break and enter to apprehend the "suspect", because they can't possibly acquire a search warrant without the governmental entity, but they would also have to commit the fundamental injustice of invading the privacy of an individual, by peeking in and watching the person do drugs. (medicinal marijuana is legal in some places which is why they keep the title of suspect) vigilantism can never be justified because it requires the so called justice keeper to break more laws than the single one they were trying to enforce. with that I will now point out the flaws in the affirmative case, first to my opponents' definitions of vigilantism, if it is defined as apprehending and punishing "suspected" criminals, then there is no possible way to enforce vigilantism, because there is no possible way to prove the "suspected" criminal guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, because the framework states that "the government has failed to enforce the law" there would be no court of law to prove them guilty so the suspect must maintain his/her innocence, via innocent until prove guilty. next, for an English lesson, lets break down the word justified, just is defined as impartial or fair, now the pro would like you to believe that justified simply means permissible, by this standard it would be justified to drugs. .. as long as you receive permission, we must realize that justified actually means To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid, now this statement agrees that something is permissible, but just because something is permissible, that doesn't mean its permissible because what is being permissed is just, right, or valid, because although someone may get permission to drugs, it is still not just, right, or valid. He says the government is technically able to enforce the law through the courts, but this couldn't be further from the truth. My opponent has the right idea that laws are enforced through the courts, but when the government has failed to enforce the law like the resolution clearly states, the courts would be inactive, therefore irrelevant. if the government has failed to enforce the law, their court systems have failed as well. criterion is autonomy, this contradicts his alternate def. of vigilantism where he stated that vigilantism is defined as groups, with individual autonomy, you would be representing what you individually believed was just, which can't be proven to be just as a whole or in a group, therefore autonomy would fall, because you're causing corruption, because every individual's definition of just differs. his first contention says the government failing to enforce the law justifies vigilantism, but we must conclude that this is the exact opposite look to his definition of vigilantism, to punish suspected criminals, how can you prove a criminal guilty without the government to do so? He gives you the Brazil example, and how they need vigilantes, but justice would be deteriorated if you put the bakassi boys from Nigeria into Brazil because they're unjust.