Vigilantism is Justified when the Government Fails to Enforce the Law

Cazioic Tournament Round 5. I Affirm the resolution, Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. The value for this round will be Justice defined as "giving to each his or her due" Justice is the most important value for this round as the resolution is asking us whether or not a specific action is permissible under a system of justice, thus the usage of the word justified. Furthermore the resolution is asking us a question of law, making justice the obvious value. Justice is also the state to which all governments and all people thrive, as it holds value in of itself. The Criterion will be Preserving Communal Security. The community is bound to, and it is beneficial to, preserve its own security, the most primary of human instincts. John Locke explains "Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, ought, as much as he can, to preserve the community." It is by preserving this community that we can best meet justice. By preserving the security of the whole we best preserve the security of the individual. In order to achieve this standard I must show that affirming the resolution can, at the very least, preserve communal security. This is independent of whether or not negation can preserve the same because the resolution asks if Vigilantism is an acceptable course of action and it is acceptable so long as it can preserve communal security, not based on whether there are alternative courses of action. I will offer the following analysis of the resolution. The intent of the resolution is for the Affirmative to defend vigilantism only in the case of violation of laws with moral backing i.e crimes in violation of universally accepted moral standards. 1. Intent: Vigilantism is generally thought of in the cases of the most severe of crimes. This is what the framer of the resolution obviously intended as it is the usual context of vigilantism. 2. Fairness: both sides should be presented with equal ground to either Affirm of Negate the resolution. When we look at only a specific group of crimes this clarifies the debate and allows us to actually debate the topic at hand rather than semantics it also allows for us to debate: Vigilantism Qua Vigilantism: The Aff must only defend vigilantism qua vigilantism. i.e. the essential features of an action that make it count as an instance of vigilantism because the generality of the topic prevents the affirmative from presenting any sort of specific plan of action for exactly how vigilantism ought to be carried out. C. Analysis of Justified The term justified in the resolution does NOT mean I have the burden to prove an obligation to vigilantism rather, that a person can't be blamed for carrying out vigilante justice given the extreme and unusual situation in which they finds themselves definitions Vigilantism: The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing criminals."(Blacks Law Dictionary) The Law: The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority. (American Heritage) Enforce: To give force or effect to a law. (Blacks Law Dictionary) Failed: To be unable to (Princeton) Contention one Sven Bislev presented to the American Political Science Association That, "The ‘vigilante' groups emerging in many places also represent a communitarian thinking" Associate professor of law Lloyd R. Cohen further explains "Vigilantes exist because they believe that justice is far better served by their methods. The law enforcement bureaucracy is totally unresponsive to the needs of the citizenry and in many cases perceived to be disinterested in the public safety of the various communities." What should be established is that vigilantism is the response of a community to failed law enforcement. Without vigilantism people have no way of protecting themselves. William Culbertson writes "The right of the people to take care of themselves, if the law does not is an indisputable right," vigilantism is but a case of the people exercising their sovereign power in the interest of self-preservation. For if the instruments of state power do not exceed private capacities, government ceases to rule and private power becomes the last resort of maintaining the social system." If the community wishes to preserve itself and to preserve social order the only route it can take is vigilantism. Professor Richard Maxwell Brown explains, "Vigilantism mobilizes the community and overwhelms the unruly criminals. The community is left in a more orderly and stable condition, and the social functions of vigilantism are served. What Vigilantism seems to do is Stabilize community values, such as security and preserve social order. The problem of community order was solved by the consolidation of the three-level social structure and the solidification of the supporting community values" So by taking vigilante action the community can preserve itself, its own security and thus we justify vigilantism. Contention Two: 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. The actions of sungusungu groups constituted a 'taking of the law into their own hands' and were in any event outside the law, challenging the powers the judiciary took as its own, of arrest, trial, and punishment. In her book" State, law, and vigilantism in northern Tanzania." Suzette Heald wrote, "In Tanzanzia, the sungusungu have altered the nature of state power at the local level and initiated long-term reforms. The Communities have taken back power, developed their own policing capacity and, in so doing, effectively re-invented themselves. With reformatory agendas, they have evolved new normative structures and modes of co-operation and organization. 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" Contention three The Impacts the negative will give you actually will not exist in a system as described by the resolution. This is because vigilantism is self-regulating. Economist Adam Smith gave the idea of the "invisible hand" as a regulator for the free market. The Economic Theory behind the invisible hand is that because the driving force behind a free market economic system is profits company's will try to maximize their own profits and the market will settle on a price of product distribution, an equilibrium that is beneficial to producers and consumers alike. This same economic concept of the "invisible hand" can be applied to vigilantism in this resolution. The driving force behind human organizations is safety. Everyone desires to be safe and secure in his right. So if the government fails and vigilantism is used these vigilantes, just like companies in Smith's free market system, need to find an equilibrium point where society will flourish. If a vigilante becomes too destructive of rights than other will step in and take him down in turn. Peter J. Ahrensdorf wrote " desire for security is the most reliable and rational desire of our nature, and any state based on satisfying that desire is, unlike pre-modern forms of political organization, fully in harmony with human nature and hence fully capable of solving the problem of anarchy." Philosopher Robert Nozick further explains that "the invisible hand explanation for a minimalist society shows how, for the sake of their own rights, citizens must be respectful of the rights of others" So any vigilante that abuses the system will be pulled down in turn, just like the criminals he sought to stop.