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

Vigilantism- Resolve: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. Define Vigilantism- any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime. Justified- to carry out what is most just Government-otherwise known as the state, an authority setup to allow society to function and pursue justice Failed- a state of inability to perform a normal function Enforce -To compel observance of or obedience to: enforce a law. Law-rule of conduct to enforce authority Justified- to carry out what is most just Government- [look up in black law/own]otherwise known as the state, an authority setup to allow society to function and pursue justice Failed- a state of inability to perform a normal function Enforce -To compel observance of or obedience to: enforce a law. Law-rule of conduct to enforce authority Value: justice My value for this round is in part justice as the resolution asks us to show if vigilantism is justified, maintaining a higher level of justice falls also means being justified. Criterion: The standard of justice the state achieves The state maintains the highest standard of justice in the form of law and procedure because the state's standard of justice has been carefully though out and is carried out through a rigorous procedure than ensures justice Contention 1: Vigilantism violates our own standard of justice as interpreted by the law. Subpoint A: when a citizen takes the law into their own hands through vigilantism they are no longer upholding the law of the government. This is because the vigilant usually violates the law in pursuit of the justice they seek. One example of this is violence. Law needs enforcement and violence is the first thing that is turned to when the methods of enforcement are limited, as is often in the case of a vigilant. The KKK mobs in the early 20th century, a form of a vigilant committee pursuing their own definition of justice, white superhot, used violence in the form of lynching and beatings in order to carry out their justice and intimidate those they saw as deserving of punishment, in this case colored people. While not only was this use of violence morally repugnant, it was often in direct opposition to the law. The law prohibits murder, assault, and a variety of other violent methods the KKK used; therefore their form of vigilante was in opposition to the law. Subpoint B: The constitution guarantees a criminal an impartial jury to be tried by. In the case of a vigilante carrying out justice, the person who is seen as a criminal by the vigilante does not have his fate decided by impartial decider. A vigilante is often far from impartial, the vigilante will already have strong preconceived notions of who is guilty, and will act impulsively on those notions. Again, vigilantism violates our own standard of law. Contention 2: When a vigilante upholds justice, they are upholding their own interpretation of justice not the states. However a vigilante's interpretation of justice cannot measure up to the standards set by the state. Subpoint A: When the vigilante upholds justice they are upholding their own definition of what justice is, and hence not using the system of justice that our law uses. When a criminal is seen as violating our system of law, the state goes through a lengthy procedure to determine in what ways they have violated our system of justice. They are tried in court where they are represented by lawyers who have spent their majority of their life studying the law, in some cases the fate of the criminal is decided by a judge who has spent years judging cases and interpreting the law. In some cases the criminal can appeal to different courts being tried by a whole new assortment of experts in the field of law. And even though outcomes are sometimes decided by juries, there are extensive procedures in place, such as impartiality and the necessity of having full agreement when deciding charges that assure that juries give a fair and carefully considered verdict. The vigilante on their own can never hope to measure up to the standards of justice setup by our current legal system. Subpoint B: A vigilante's interpretation of justice in the form of retribution they carry out is often arbitrary and does not come anywhere close to the rigors setup by our current system of law. For example, person A sees person B murder a close friend. In rage, person A murders person B in order to avenge the death of his friend and carry out his interpretation of justice, in this case "an eye for an eye" interpretation. But as we can see person A determines justice not by a rigorous procedure filled with experts of law as occurs at the state level, but instead lets his emotions determine justice in the sense that he avenges a death because of the rage he feels towards person B. Emotions are a powerful things and will win out when conflicting reason, a person can easily rationalize something as being just when he has a powerful emotional incentive to as is seen with my example. Contention 3: If society does break down, effort should be directed towards recreating the state rather than pursuing vigilante justice. Subpoint A: When law has broken down and justice can not be carried out by the state, an individual interpreting justice and carrying it out as they see fit, will not increase justice because the vigilante is pursuing the wrong form of justice, a justice that goes against the form established by the state. Instead efforts should be taken to re-establish the state if it fails and carry out justice through the newly created state. As I have shown, the state is the best decider of justice and it's this level of justice we should strive to create, if the state happens to fail. When justice is carried out through the state, it is no longer vigilantism and hence vigilantism is no longer justified.