Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the Government has failed to Enforce Laws.

"The government ultimately is able to enforce the law by the courts. So if the government has failed to enforce the law, then the courts are therefore ineffective..."Well the governmetn enforces the law by the police, they enforce justice through the courts.... Also if a single instance occurs where the government (through the police) fails to enfore the law it doesnt mean the police (not the courts) are ineffective, it just means that they missed one...Othet than that I will now analyze the Pro's subpoints...1A) "However, in a case such as one advocated by the resolution, the government has failed to uphold the law. As the government is the basis of the law this essentially means that the government is illegitimate and without any de facto power." - The Pro is dealing with extremes on this one. He is saying the entire US government is illegitimate if through state police forces they fail to uphold the law even once... That is the equivilant of saying that someone who misspells a word here on DDO is not allowed to say they speak english.....Just because the police slip up one time does not mean they should be completely shut down from enforcing the law and thrusting that burden on citizens...1B) In this point you claim that vigilantism is justified when the police cannot enforce the law, however you make this assumption based completely on the idea that random people know exactly what the laws are, the punishments of said laws, and that they could execute said punishment correctly, and on all 3 counts that does not happen with vigilantism..Also you seem to be failing to recognize the difference between enforcing the law and achieving justice. Courts take care of justice, police enforce the law.2) In this argument you are referring to only one country with one particular crime to enforce your entire argument. The rates that murderors are found in many countries range from 50% to 70% in countries with well funded police forces. Arson rates, rape cases, and other serious offenses have a solve rate of 50 to 65% too, but the less violent or costly the crime the less it is investigated or solved because the seriosity of the crime determines the attention it recieves.Point is, many more serious crimes are solved far more frequently than robberies in 1 industrializing country....3) "Thus, it is seen that vigilantism ultimately leads to justice in any society"You base this entire argument off the "fact" that vigilantism always succeeds and delivers justice, I only need to show one example to prove that vigilantism is not 100% effectiveOn May 10 2010, A man was caught shoplifting crayons and toothpaste in a CVS Pharmacy by the CVS manager, the CVS manager then proceededto strangle the shoplifter to death...http://www.ktla.com...====================================================================================================================================================================================================================================Vigilantism does not guarantee justice, in fact the outcome of vigilantism can easily eclipse the severity of the crime. Vigilantism is not justified because1) Not every citizen knows every law to "avenge"2) Not every citizen knows the punishment that comes with every law to carry out3) Citizens may often overreact to crimes committed and issue a punishment far too severe for the crime committed4) Vigilantism is not guaranteed to carry out justice to a crimeIll end here for now...