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

Neg Case I negate the resolution: Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law. For clarity in the round, I offer the following definitions: Vigilantism: The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals. Justified: to show to have had a sufficient legal reason. Government: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization. Failed: to be or become absent or inadequate. Enforce: to carry out effectively. The Law: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority My value for this debate will be justice which I define as the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness. I will achieve my value through my value criterion which is community cohesion. Community Cohesion prevents us from falling into a state of nature, where in there is no guarantee that every person will achieve his or her due. If there is community cohesion then systems in the government work best and every person can receive his or her due. Contention 1: If the law is unjust and the vigilante enforces the law then the vigilante is unjust. The resolution says that vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law. However if the law is unjust and the government fails to uphold these unjust laws, if the vigilante enforces these laws then the vigilante is unjust. An example of this is Jim Crow laws. These laws discriminated against black people (such as myself) and when the government failed to enforce these laws unjust vigilante groups such as the KKK upheld these laws instead. They did this many times by lynching the Negro who could be lynched for a number of things such being having sex with a white woman, hanging out with white men in a area reserved for whites, and many other racist things. I'm sure my opponent agrees with me that lynching blacks for racist reasons is unjust. If not then my opponent admits that such laws would have to be enforced, for whatever reason. My opponent then has no moral standing. He's freely advocating, at this point, a government that freely abuses and dehumanizes certain members of society. And, at that point, there's no point in the law for those members of society. Also if the community believes a law to be bad and the vigilante enforces it when the government hasn't this can disrupt the cohesion in the community. As systems work best when there is community cohesion this would clearly be a bad thing. For example many people are unaware that they break the law all the time yet because it is an unjust law that the community doesn't agree with it is not enforced. An example of this would be a Florida law stating that it is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit or that it is illegal to skateboard without a license. Many people break this law every day yet it is not generally enforced as the community agrees that is bad, stupid law. If a vigilante were to enforce these laws this would cause not only chaos but fear as well as disharmony in the community. Contention 2: Vigilantes don't render retributive punishment. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy when it comes to punishment, the most effective path to achieving justice is through retributive punishment. According to the liberteriannation article "Vigilantes of Montana" vigilantes do not enforce laws through retribution. Instead they opt to dish out whatever form of punishment they deem, most often times violently. Additionally according the apsu.edu article "VIGILANTISM, VIGILANTE JUSTICE, AND SELF-HELP" most vigilantes are often times driven by vengeance and that part of the vigilante mentality is to right crimes through wrongful often violent means. Because vigilantes do not use retribution and retribution is the best form of just punishment then justice is not achieved. Without justice, dues aren't rendered to citizens, which causes disharmony, anger, and fear amongst the community. If justice can't be achieved then vigilantes aren't just. Contention 3: Vigilantes spawn more vigilantes As vigilantes spread fear and anger in the community they can spawn more vigilantes who are interested in either assisting the vigilante to avoid being targeted or to combat the vigilante. An example of a vigilante spawning more vigilantes that wish to aid the first vigilante would be the beginning of the Dark Knight. Everyone's favorite vigilante Batman had inspired others to take up vigilante work as well to stop criminals. This ended up being detrimental as Batman had to deal with them getting in his way, and him having to protect them as well as having to apprehend the criminals. On the other side of the spectrum were we have vigilantes spawning counter vigilantes we have the real life example of the KKK and the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers were primarily a response to the vigilante group the Ku Klux Klan. This instead of helping the problem only perpetrated the violence further. So in a sense vigilantism generates super villains. So as one can see vigilantes by creating more vigilantes harm community cohesion further by creating fear in the community. If there is fear in a community there is often disorder so the community could not function as well it could.