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

Sorry I was in Harvard for the Debate Invitational, so I haven't really had access to a computer. I would like to begin by pointing out the flaws in the argument in which Mdal has presented. I am not going to state any real examples for refutation points, but I would like you to keep Batman in realization. ( I LOVE Batman too :] ) Argument 1: He uses the example of *The Punisher* for his example of negative vigilantism. His warrants for this negativity is the fact that *The Punisher* kills his enemies (i.e. criminals) instead of properly administering them to the 'concepts of law' (i.e. law enforcement). I would like to point out thought that if he were not to kill them, there would not be a proper administration of law anyways for the following reasons: 1) The fact that this resolution talks about the government not being able to enforce laws in a society, basically justifies the act of those who are trying to uphold these values. The ideal of rule of law states that "no person is above the law", so in knowing this, if we as citizens want our laws and rights protected, and the government can't do so, it is because of the obligation of rule of law and justice that we must assure criminals are punished. 2) The fact of these criminals being punished by death can be moralized because of the fact they committed the crime. Even in present day society, a criminal who is found guilty for a felony such as murder can still receive the death penalty. So why is it when a vigilante who protects citizens are not justified, yet a corrupt or even practical government receives no complaints. Subpoint A: His tag line basically states that by allowing vigilantism to be justified, will allow for a massive augment in violence. First, I would like to state, seeing the current stasis of the society being violent already from the lack of governmental participation, there would already be a massive affiliation of violence. By actually justifying vigilantism, we reduce the amount of violence because we are ensuring protection to those who are innocent. He inquires how we can stop people from harming each other. Well in a corrupted society like this, the social contract in not in effect because the government cannot protect the people. The only real way to ensure protection is vesting trust into a vigilante who promotes justice. He also uses a quote from Thomas Hobbes stating that life would be brutish and short if there were no respect for the law. Well if there is no one protecting the law, that is what happens. By having a vigilante, we can not only replace the lack of stability from the government, but we can also regard the laws. Subpoint B: He states that innocent people can get hurt, and that lawyers and policemen, and etc. will protect them. Though, as I stated before, this resolution identifies with a corrupt society, a government that is not able to enforce laws, so therefore without a vigilante, we cannot protect the innocents anyway. In many cases also, the protection from getting the 'wrong guy' is not properly administered because there are many cases in which a government has pardoned those who did crimes, and punished those who haven't. Subpoint C: He states that the people who try to stop crime will get hurt. He even uses an example demonstrating himself. The vigilantes' are not being forced to go out and fight these crimes. It is because they believe in justice and protecting the innocence of their societies, that they sacrifice themselves in order to reserve justice. That is what this resolution asks for. The preservation of justice in a society. As a clarification point, spiderman can not be seen as a vigilante because the the definition of a vigilante is a person like batman ( no powers basically), so for these reasons you should affirm. :]