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

Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. NEG V: Societal Welfare The welfare of society is of the utmost importance. We need to stop crimes from being committed before they are. We also need to establish a stable social order. Society will never progress otherwise. VC: reduction of human suffering My opponent advocates some type of punishment which entails human suffering for two victims. The criminal who will be punished by the vigilante and the original victim of this crime. What I propose is that these crimes be prevented by eliminating motives from society. Thus, in this scenario we will have lesser human suffering. If this is not done then it will be an endless cycle of crime committed and punishment committed. Vigilantes are never moral or just 1 If vigilantes are striving for justice, they will never achieve it. Let me further explain. When man has tried to define justice, many different types have arisen. For example, equality of justice or utilitarian justice. Since justice can never be defined it can never be achieved. For the vigilante to achieve justice in his mind will truly be his justice, not necessarily true impossible justice. For example, the Second World War. Nazi Germany viewed justice as killing inferior Jews for they had led to the partial downfall of the country in the First World War, they assumed. We can see clearly that this was just for them but not for the rest of the world. 2 Vigilantes who try to enforce the law are hypocrites. This may seem blunt and offensive but it is exactly this. Let me first add the distinction between a vigilante and a community watchman. A vigilante violates the law, while technically a community watchman is an extension of the law and provides a legal service to the community. The vigilante who tries to uphold the law clearly has two faults. One he is violating the same law he is trying to uphold. This cannot be allowed even in government. Imagine a policeman who tries to prevent killings in his profession, performs them instead. This negates his earlier service and proves to enforce the concept that anything is allowed. Two the laws he may be trying to enforce are probably unjust. It is to be expected from a government that does not enforce the law that it have unjust laws in the first place. Why wouldn't a corrupt government NOT have laws ascertaining the power of its leaders? 3 A Vigilante is useless if prevention and deterrence is the goal. A vigilante allows the infraction to be committed and then administers injustice once again. When the vigilante allows the infraction to be committed he is truly not stopping the crime. The individuals who committed the crime will be locked away, but new ones will still arise. The correct solution would be to stop these criminals and catch them before the crime is committed. Otherwise we would be going in an endless cycle. The criminal commits the crime, vigilantes punish them. How this would be achieved would be to study the motives and reasons and to eliminate those reasons or prevent them from acting out those reasons. Thus, we can ascertain the thought that all vigilantism is completely unjust, immoral and ineffective. Furthermore we also know that what the government was doing earlier will be the same or similar to what the vigilante will do. Enforce the law into an endless cycle. And finally we see that the laws or justice enforced will never achieve a societal good. Boogie Dance!