RE: Vigilantism is justified when the U.S. government has failed to enforce the law.

|Little bit of a disclaimer: Although it doesn't HAVE to be in LD format, I'm going to do my side as such. Hope there are no objections.| In Amitai Etzioni's book The New Golden Rule, he points out that "Communities, not governments, should govern men." Because the failure of the government to enforce set standards is an opportunity for community intervention, I affirm that Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. Let me define some key terms: Vigilantism: Prof. William Burrows explicitly lists criteria to define vigilantism: An organized community response, proceeding for a finite time with definite goals, acting because of a failure of the established law enforcement system, and working for the preservation and betterment of that existing system. "the law": the regime that orders human activities or relations through systematic application of force. Before presenting my value, I'll clarify the affirmative burden: First, the phrase "the law" shows that we're talking neither about a law, nor some law, but a body of rules. Second, the resolution asks for justification: I don't have to prove that vigilantism will be used, nor that once used it will be 100% effective, or completely perfect: A government is imperfect, and vigilantism must be held to that standard. My value is Justice, which is the equilibrium between order and autonomy. Etzioni says that we cannot maximize either one of these because to lean too far towards rights leads us to anarchy, but to lean too far towards order brings us to totalitarianism. Balancing the community with individuals allows society to function at the highest level. The criterion which seeks this balance is Communitarianism. Order and autonomy share a sort of reverse symbiosis, and Etzioni offers a standard by which to achieve the equilibrium: "Respect and uphold society's moral order as you would have society respect and uphold your autonomy." In short, whatever you put into the community is exactly what the community is going to reciprocate to you. Contention I- Vigilantism protects the equilibrium from further abuse. 1)Vigilantism prevents extreme reactions to crime. Etzioni is quick to point out that the only kind of acceptable autonomy is the institutionalized autonomy one has in a community. When citizens follow the rules, upholding the order of society, the government is obligated to reciprocate by upholding their autonomy. When the government experiences a failure, people are inclined to haphazardly take matters into their own hands without care for order; The essay Communities, Victims, and Offender Reintegration remarks that if citizens don't take responsibility for decisions affecting the community, then that community will be plagued by lack of a collective sense of caring, a lack of respect for diverse values, and a lack of sense of belonging; the general health of a community – and its crime rate – is directly related to the extent to which citizens participate in the community. What this basically means is that without responsible citizens participating in the justice process and operating under set standards, unnecessary violence can occur; in short, without organized vigilantism, there is a greater likelihood of a lynch mob surfacing to claim vengeance. 2) Vigilantism prevents the government from overcompensating for its failure. Etzioni explains that if the public's safety is not protected, that "they tend to call for stronger and stronger police measures, and ultimately for strong leaders." Looking at the equilibrium, a government failure often leads to future over-enforcement as a response to the public's desire for safety. The problem here lies in the fact that the government leans too far towards order, further disrupting the already-damaged equilibrium; vigilantes act as temporary mediators in victimized communities to prevent the shift to totalitarianism. 3)Vigilantism helps expose fundamental flaws in the government. Gordon Bazemore states in Civic Repentance, "Since the root of crime is community conflict and disharmony, ‘justice' cannot be achieved by a government ‘war on crime' but rather by peacemaking and dispute resolution. In this sense, crime – or any conflict – is viewed as an opportunity because it calls attention to social conditions that cause conflict and provides a chance for the community to affirm its values and tolerance limits." The government's failure may seem bad at first, but its failure is really an opportunity for reform; obviously the government's "war on crime" was ineffective, and vigilantism puts pressure on the government to change the way it operates. Effectively, without vigilantism, the reformation of the government could never get off the ground. Contention II- Vigilantism enhances the equilibrium between order and autonomy. 1) Vigilantism promotes higher community involvement in governing. Communities, represented by these organized vigilante committees, are better suited to handling criminals because of the benefit of increased familiarity with victimizers, according to Kelly Hine's Vigilantism Revisited. Vigilantism is preferable to the criminal justice system in this instance, because while the justice system is interested solely in punishing criminals, a community response to crime offers much more including, but not limited to, reintegration of offenders, restitution to victims, and encourages both offenders and victims to participate in the reconciliation process. Thus, community restoration of the equilibrium is preferable to the societal focus on retribution. 2)A community response to crime promotes flexibility. In criminal law, there are blanket sentences applied to certain crimes, like murder, or arson, or assault. Courts often dismiss the circumstances of the offense, under the mentality of ‘a crime is a crime is a crime'. In light of the government's failure, communities have more than a right to take responsibility for local offenders; this is a better response to crime because communities are able to work on a case-by-case basis, examining all the circumstances of the crime, such as the offender's history, personality, and other factors that allow for personalized redemption, as opposed to merely a prison sentence and probation. 3)Vigilantism supplements traditional law enforcement. An example of organized vigilantism is the Peninsula Anti-Crime Agency in South Africa; they're a community group which looks after rape victims, abused children, etc. They actually encourage victims to go to the police; if the police cannot or refuse to mediate the conflict, only then does this group step in: Much like the PEACA, vigilantes will only act once traditional law enforcement has failed, simply to fill the holes that could not be filled; since the change from a focus on retribution to one on reconciliation is difficult, vigilantes are helpful in that they attempt to work with and reform the existing system; they uphold the order of society by operating through established laws, and thus the equilibrium mandates that society recognize the autonomy of a community to regulate crime and resolve conflicts. In conclusion, while the negative may ask you to maximize a criminal's rights, or maximize the power of the government to control crime, only with the affirmative can you achieve the equilibrium between order and autonomy; don't blindly accept ‘maximizing rights' or ‘maintaining order' as inherently good things; only by sacrificing some of both can we achieve justice.