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

AFF SAYS: "To be a vigilante you must meet the requirements stated in my observation. If you do not meet one of the requirements, then you are not a vigilante. For example, the vigilantes in the Neighborhood Watch Program are members of an organized committee, they are established members of the community, they proceed with definite goals, and not with the intention of random violence, and they act as a last resort because of failure of the established law system I found this information at the American University Law Review, which is the oldest/largest student-run publication at American University, Washington College of Law." okay great, the PRO source has merit, but for the fourth time, where is the WARRANT? just because American University Law Review says that I'm going to birth 300 pound elephant out of my anus, does not mean that I am going to. this observation has no analytical warrants given by my opponents, and when those criteria given by that observation are not stipulated by the resolution, these traits are completely unfounded. When asked why vigilantes have to have these traits my opponent responds with something to the extent of, "they just do". my opponent can in no way justify this observation thus it fails. "Again, you have repeated that the government is bound to the Constitution, they have checks and balances, they have due process, and there main goal is to provide citizens with their fundamental rights, but you are still failing to answer my question: What makes these systems just?" At the point where I have answered this multiple times, and warranted the argument within the first time I brought it up, I think I have answered this in more than just an adequate manner. I quote the several times from last round that I answered this question: 1. THE LAW: -"if your theory is that the law is unjust, then we MUST negate, as the vigilante is defined as someone who is enforcing THE LAW. enforcing an unjust law on citizens would be an act of complete INJUSTICE, meaning that the resolution would be therefore negated." 2.) THE CONSTITUTION: -"the constitution would be astronomically more just than the arbitrary decisions made by vigilantes because: A.) it is consistent B.) it was made by those who represent their constituents, and even the constituents themselves, meaning that it is what the society that is governed by it feels is just. C.)The lone purpose of a constitution is to assign what rights are protected and what power goes where, thus reserving rights and placing checks on law enforcement." 3.) The Government -"they have entire subdivisions of government dedicated to law enforcement, the resources found within the government are going to exponentially more than that of the average citizen's." -"what a society decides is collective of that society. what a vigilante decides is not. in the rare, rare chance that a police officer or government official is to be the one who apprehends that sort of a suspect, there are still several other processes of which the accused goes through before a decision of his/her punishment is made." just because my opponent has failed to conceive these are explanations, does not mean that I haven't answered her question multiple times throughout the round. "What ensures you that these rights that they are trying to provide us with are just." At this point I have no idea what the neg is even talking about. how could the preservation of fundamental, inalienable rights like due process or freedom of speech or right to a speedy trial be corrupt or unjust? the mere fact that vigilantes do not have to preserve these rights warrant's a negative ballot. Furthermore vigilantes are people who enforce THE LAW that means that whatever the laws are that have been pre-determined the vigilantes are to enforce THAT LAW. so if we are in a world where the law is unjust, this means that the vigilantes are enforcing an unjust law which is always unjust and always warrants a negative ballot. "Vigilantism is distinct from mob justice because it is solely concerned with the maintenance of the law." This is contradicted by what the AFF says later in this same paragraph, conceding that: "A corrupt group of government officials could also be in this imaginary situation and be considered to be a mob. Also, vigilantes are not necessarily violent." This is a concession that something like this could happen with vigilantes. however, a group of police officers would be different, insofar as they have higher authorities and branches that place checks on them to refrain from that happening. so if they did happen they would have to answer to higher authorities. vigilantes respond to no higher authority and are thus the ultimate authority in the land, making them more inclined to abuse that power. "It is very unlikely for things to get so out of hand as this imaginary situation you have come up with." it's not unlikely at all, mob mentalities are very legitimate and psychologically proven to be legitimate. "Vigilantes don't try to create trouble, they try to enforce the law and punish criminals." Whether it be directly or indirectly, they create trouble through punishing those criminals with inadequate resources, and a arbitrary view of the justice system. "And yet another time, the vigilantes would not try to gain ultimate authority over the people they are trying to help the society, not hurt it." These are human beings we are talking about, they are corruptible, and have absolute authority in the land. and not to be too clichï¿½, but "absolute power, corrupts absolutely". The example would definitely have relevance with the resolution because the government has failed to enforce a law, so the criminal is still free. The vigilante is helping to enforce the law, by reporting the criminal. its not "a law" its "the law" its literally a world where the government has failed to enforce "the Law". meaning that vigilantes are not helping to enforce the law they are the body that is enforcing the law, thus that example has no place within the context of this debate. "but WHAT MAKES THE CONSTITUTION JUST?" already discussed this several times, basically the constitution is written by the people or those who represent the people so it is literally what the people think is JUST. furthermore,your example of Britain doesn't exactly work, because your not talking about the constitution. the U.K literally has an unwritten constitution. however, your example is a great for the negative, as the supreme court is nullifying a law and making sure that the laws are just, something that vigilantes do not have. " FYI neither side could win if either of us believed that the law was unjust, because both sides are enforcing the LAW" False. I don't have the burden of proof I have the burden of clash. you have to prove that vigilantism is justified. I have to show how it isn't. "A.) What makes consistence just?" that it isn't subjective, skewed, and arbitrary. "B.) What makes the constituents just?" that they are the people who the laws and the constitution affect. "C.) How did the creators of the Constitution know what rights to protect and where to put the power?" because they had been in oppressive governments beforehand and new that there should be checks and balances. On the neg arguments against the innocent man scenario, it is once again a misconception of what I', trying to say. once again I wasn't saying they would punish a person released from prison, I was saying they don't have the means of finding out if that person was innocent, in comparison to the gov. On their argument against the child porn man example, my opponent has a completely flawed conception of justice, as well as a misconception of what the example actually was arguing. vigilantes tried to punish this man, and instead killed his wife. lack of means. vote NEG.