Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law

Despite my initial confusion on character limit, I like this topic, so I shall negate. Since we have a non-traditional 4 rounds, I will only post my case. I assume we can rebut in future rounds. Before I introduce the negative advocacy, I need to contest the definition provided by my opponent for "vigilantism." 1. This definition is highly abusive to the negative advocacy. Clearly, the empirical manifestation of a vigilante is not going to always exhibit such lofty characteristics as the ones in Burrows' study. Furthermore, the purpose of the resolution is to debate the empirical reality of the practice of vigilantism, which is generally most commonly practiced in areas of unrest. Hence, the concept of a vigilante inherently acting in last resort, in organized committees, or for the betterment of a given system is unable to be proven conclusively. Hence, the more accurate definition and more educational definition for the round should be: "One who takes or advocates the taking of the law enforcement into one's own hands."- American Heritage Dictionary 2. Even if you buy that this definition is fair to the negative advocacy, the affirmative can't prove that any vigilante will act in this Utopian manner. Even the author of this definition, with his obvious bias in favor of vigilante justice, must use the word "claim" in order to describe the virtues of the practice. At the point where vigilantes can clearly violate these tenets, both by the author's own admission and empirical examples, you should not prefer the affirmative advocacy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To the negative case: V: Human Rights. When we think of human rights, we default to the same general definition: life, liberty, and security (assuming we use rights established by the United Nations). These, however, are far more complex. Not only is life guaranteed, but so is its quality. Liberty is certainly an intricate concept, and must be carefully established to protect all. Security isn't just safety from immediate harm. Stability is also expected in a fair society. The negative will show that none of these things may ever be achieved or even maintained by the act of vigilantism. C: A Stabilized System of Justice. The negative's ultimate goal is to establish a stable, centralized, equitable judicial system. This, as the negative will prove, is the only way to maximize both justice and human rights. 1: Vigilantism entrenches problems within a given state, and can never solve any of the problems that spawned its necessity. Though vigilantism, like communism, has its foundations in noble intentions, rarely does it have the capacity to solve the problems within a state that keep that state from effectively enforcing its laws. A. Vigilantism leads to no systemic change within government. Vigilantism, no matter what definition we operate under, is not interested in anything more than a band-aid solution to governmental problems. If a state is failing to enforce its laws, there is clearly a reason for doing so, and an inept government is not always the cause. That is the worst of causes. Failure to enforce could stem from a lack of resources and support. In fact, in first world countries, the chances of non-enforcement being due to infrastructural or resource-based concerns is highly likely. Vigilantism throws this legitimate government into chaos, rather than simply fixing the root problem at hand. In states in which the government is unadulteratedly corrupt or inept, vigilantism is not only useless, but it is dangerous to all involved. The affirmative world refuses to examine the government, but simply prescribes what amounts to anarchical, despotic justice fueled by revenge and impatience. B. Vigilante groups are more likely to violate human rights than procedurally established justice systems. Logically, the nature of an impromptu vigilante or vigilante group is highly volatile. Unlike a government-established system of justice, vigilante justice is motivated by revenge. Vigilantes have no way to establish checks or maximize objectivity within the judicial process. This is not to say that a government cannot be volatile or establish unjust laws. That is patently undefendable. However, it is clear that a group of vigilantes are far more likely to violate the rights of offenders, as they are human beings as well, because of their motivation and lack of infrastructure or legal authority. C. Vigilante groups are susceptible to infighting and corruption. As seen in too many countries to name, vigilante groups do not arise in singles. Multiple groups per community form, and those groups are often polarized by ethnicity or religion. As has been seen countless times, because of the lack of organization and the penchant for blind revenge, will turn on each other. Higazi elaborates: "There was a general shift or extension from vigilance against criminality to vigilance against attacks by opposing groups or militias defining themselves in religious or ethnic terms…Hence, vigilantism…appears not only to have increased but also to have been transformed." In other words, not only does fighting between the factions occur, but the fighting then increases the number of vigilantes within a community. This quickly spreads out what used to be a state monopoly on violence and punishment, which immediately destabilizes a country. Furthermore, it allows the already corrupt state to eliminate any insurgency using its own vigilante mechanisms. Higazi continues: "There is strong evidence that some elites in government and the military helped arm militias, and even after the violence ethnic and religious leaders continued to lobby for the political support of sectional interests, with divisive repercussions." It is thus concluded that vigilantism does nothing more than entrench a corrupt and abusive government by eliminating competitive, sectional insurgency groups that would otherwise be able to unite and overthrow an oppressive regime. D. The only solution to states with corrupt or inept justice systems is revolution. If we exclude first world, democratically-minded governments, which can most likely be aided by resource or infrastructural repair, rather than vigilantes, we come to governments that are most likely highly corrupt or inept. As has been evidenced above, insurgent or revolutionary groups would be entirely more successful in checking poor governments if vigilantism did not occur. Revolutions can only gain momentum through unity, and vigilantism only divides. Not only that, but vigilantism simply works within the existing system to seek justice; it does nothing to renovate or change the system itself, which is the foundation of the problem in the first place. Only violent revolution can destroy a nonfunctional system. Rosenfeld elaborates: "Violent revolution effectively simplifies the work of justice by marking a sharp rupture between ancient and nouveau regime by providing a murky interim period fit for settling old accounts and dismantling old power structures that stand in the way of the new order…" As I not only sufficiently negate any perceived benefits of vigilantes, but provide working solvency for unstable governments, I encourage you to vote negation. I look forward to refutations and will post responses to my opponent's case in the next round.