Vigilantism is Justified when the Government has Failed to Enforce the Law.

I would like to post my case Donna Leons once said I find the idea of vigilante justice very attractive. I like the idea that the murderer decides that this person has gone too far, and nothing will happen to him unless she does something to stop him. I strongly negate the resolution: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. I offer the definitions Vigilantism occurs when a person violates the law in order to exact what they believe to be justice from criminals, because they think that the criminal will not be caught or will not be sufficiently punished by the legal system. The Government refers to the United States government and its checks and balances. Including the judiciary, Executive, and legislative branches. For this debate my value will be justice. Justice is meant more for the society as a whole than for the individual victims because it is designed to prove repeatedly that people are safe within their society. My value criterion will be Protecting Rights Vigilantism offers no protections of due process rights, no checks on cruel or unusual punishment, no accountability to any exterior force. Suspects--or even known criminals--are still humans, deserving of fair trials and humane treatment. The key point is this resolution is "when the government has failed to enforce the law". However, the government's motivation for failing to enforce the law is not addressed, nor at least in my honest opinion is it implied in the wording of the topic. There are many potential reasons why a government may fail to enforce the law Contention 1) the law itself might be unjust or even criminal under international law. Consider the historical examples of the Fugitive Slave Act. The earlier Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was a federal law, which was written to enforce a section of the United States Constitution that required the return of runaway slaves. It sought to force the authorities in free states to return fugitive slaves to their masters. The Jim Crow laws in the United States are another example. They called for segregation of public schools, public places and public transportation, as well as the segregation of restrooms and restaurants for blacks and whites. Now assume these laws were not being enforced. Would it be desirable for one or more private citizens to go out and enforce these unjust and inhumane laws? In short, "law" is not the same as "justice" Do not assume the two are the same or even remotely similar. Contention 2) Vigilantism leads to anarchy An imperfect democracy, yes, even an imperfect democracy, is still the best form of government that is known to humankind from America to Zimbabwe. The same is true of constitutions and constitutional imperfections; it is better to have rules, with some flaws, than not on have rules at all. Having and respecting rules, is what the rule of law and due process is all about. Good people sometimes, out of frustrations and accumulated disappointments and anger take the law into their own hands; they resort to what lawyers call self-help. Self-help is vigilantism; this enforcement leads to lawlessness and anarchy, because there is no set of rules. There are no dispassionate and objective arbiter or fact-finder; it is like a Basketball game without a referee. The teams may cheat or elbow each other, because there is no referee to enforce the rules. Therefore the aggrieved party becomes the judge, the committee or jury, and the executioner all in one. That is the equivalence of absolute power. We have a legal system for a reason. Who are they to decide what's wrong and right? Anything else is called anarchy, where only the strong survive. Think about it. What if I decided that your car was too noisy? So I decided to set it on fire. Would you be happy? Is that anyway to run a society. Contention 3) Vigilantism is unjust Vigilante justice is often a cruel form of justice and can often involve the person being beat to death by an angry mob; looking for blood because something happened to someone they don't know. When an air-traffic controller in Switzerland had no reliable radar, no phone and limited radio contact, two planes collided. One of the fathers of the victims shot the ATC although he actually had no control over events that happened. Vigilantism can go wrong. The law makes mistakes and even hangs the wrong man but after he has been found guilty by a Grand Jury. The fifth amendment protects this right and is violated when vigilante's take the decision to kill in the name of justice in there own hands. Because Vigilantism doesn't always have the benefits of proper investigation it is unjust. Contention 4) Vigilantism interferes with constitutional rights Among the legitimate purposes of government is the punishment of those who violate the rights of others through the commission of violent or forceful acts, such as murder, rape, robbery, theft, burglary, or trespass. The Sixth Amendment reads as follows: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his Defence. But in vigilantism the offended party becomes the judge and jury and acts as they see fit for the crime. The constitution right to an impartial trial exists no longer thus making vigilantism unjust. Contention 5) Know your Rights There is a reason we have law enforcement and a judicial system. If we allowed vigilante justice our society would be chaotic. What my opponent is describing is not vigilantism but defense of another. It is justifiable for a person to intervene and use violence if another person is being attacked. Defense of an individual occurs during an attack/rape/assault whereas vigilantism occurs after the fact. If you witness a rape or any other assault you are only allowed to use as much force that's required to stop the attacker and get the victim to safety and then call the police. It doesn't mean you have the right to go get a chainsaw and slice the attacker into 75 pieces. So, rather by executing there right to defend the person being attacked they are not doing a vigilant act and therefore are not a vigilante, making my opponents examples of these un-topical. 6)The government may simply be strapped for resources. Take at good hard look at the U.S. today - both in terms of the fiscal crisis and the problems we are having with court clog and prison overpopulation. Washington may need three new prisons by 2030 if its jail population follows current trends. But with each prison costing $250 million to build and $45 million per year to run, are more jails the best option? Incarcerating more criminals does have a positive effect: WSIPP calculates that boosting the prison population by 10 per cent can cut crime by up to 4 per cent. However, it is expensive, and the returns diminish as more offenders are put inside. So WSIPP has put forward a portfolio of alternative policies designed to stabilize the state's prison population at current levels, including treatment for drug addicted prisoners and MTFC. This would leave Washington about $1.4 billion better off by 2030 compared with a business-as-usual approach, which would involve building new prisons. There, are other ways to deal with criminals than by putting them behind bars or being a vigilante and advocating the law as you see fit. Conclusion Justice is upheld through protecting rights and the executing of those rights. Everyone deserves equal treatment in this world and through the Constitution these rights are upheld correctly. When vigilantism exists the rights are gone. The