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

Okay so I guess I will just cross examine and then NC--> AC sorry if I'm a bit rusty on the formalities of LD. so according to your definition of The Law, law is only legitimate when enforced by a political authority, thus, if there is no political authority enforcing the law does that mean that law itself is illegitimate and subjective? On your second observation of vigilantes, you state that vigilantes are established members of a community, how is this stipulated by your definition? you state that vigilantes don't use random violent methods to achieve their goals, how is this ensured when the actor is an imperfect human being? ------------------------- NC -------------------------- DEFINITIONS 1. Vigilantism Black's (8th ed.) defines it as "The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals." I accept my opponents value of Justice my value criterion for this debate is a vigilante's skewed concept of justice. this should be the preferred criterion insofar as vigilantes are humans and are fallible, they have no universal or collective conception of what is truly just for the people when trying to decide how to punish and apprehend different criminals. thus justice cannot be achieved. Contention 1- vigilante's inability to ensure justice. Subpoint A- Vigilantes are humans, humans are fallible. because vigilantes are humans they are inherently biased when making decisions of punishment and prosecution of crimes. a vigilante merely does whatever it is in his or her power to ensure their own conception of what they believe to be just. in the majority of legal court systems there are several arbitrators who have a thorough concept of the law and have the means to make the most accurate decision possible to ensure justice. Vigilantes do not have the luxury to do such things. they let emotions, and bias contribute to the punishment and apprehension of the crime depriving the subject of their due process and ultimate justice. Subpoint B- Vigilantes lack the means to ensure justice Unlike court systems vigilantes do not have the means to provide the accused their due process, which is fundamental in ensuring justice. What the vigilante perceives to be the correct punishment for the accused, could be inherently flawed for they lack resources such as witnesses and time to ensure an accurate verdict of the crime. ------------ AC- ------------ prefer my definition because its from blacks law and blacks pwns souls. The affirmative gives an observation of vigilantes from the American University Law Review, however, i contend several aspects of the critera that she gives vigilantism the first of which, is that no where in her or my definition does it stipulate that vigilantes have to be "established" members of a community, nor does it stipulate that vigilantes cannot act in a random and violent matter to pursure their goals, just simply that they pursure their goals and enforce the law by whatever means. notice that vigilantes are not BOUND by the law they are just simply enforcing it. reject autonomy or the right to self government for it cannot achieve ultimate justice when the actor is fallable. this creates an opposition to justice for instead of the actor working on behalf of rules determined to be "just" by a society. he/she works on their own, imperfect and ever-changing conception of justice leading to a lack of due process, human rights violations, and so forth. CONTENTION1- I agree with the quote from socrates, however, vigilantes take matters into their own hands and administer what they view as just. this, combines with biased perceptions of the people they are apprehending can lead to major injustices like hate crimes and so forth. especially when there is no concept of rule of law binding the vigilantes to stay true to the law. CONTENTION 2-first, one example of vigilantism being a good thing does in no way prove the resolution to be inherrently true. that would be similar to me killing a man because he was loitering in front of my house, coming later to find that he was going to kill my family. just because it prevented harm from happening once, does not mean that it was just, or that killing every person that hung out around my house would be a good idea. furthermore, who's to say that those bandits were apprehended and punished in a just manner. what if those bandits were killing people for stealing loafs of bread from them. this ultimatley ties into the NC of a skewed concept of justice for these individuals cannot remove their biases or feelings of irrationality when prosecuting crimes and so forth. CONTENTION3- so how does people taking the law into their own hands pursue justice? how is one man punishing another man his own skewed interpretation just? reject autonomy, reject the third contention, and reject the AC. THank you I now stand open for CX