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

Hi everyone, I hope that my opponent will not be annoyed that such an inexperienced debater as myself has decided to contend in this debate and I must apologise for my ignorance of debating procedure, particularly regarding LD style as I must confess I have no idea what this means. I will however endeavor to frame my argument in a similar format to my opponent and will welcome any corrections on procedure. I can reassure my opponent that I am serious. [I ain't no joke] I begin this debate with a lot of respect for my opponent who makes a lot of good arguments, on a side note it is also interesting that a quick glance at his profile reveals that he and I agree on over 90% of the big issues, I wish him luck also. I refute the resolution that vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. I acccept my opponents definitions but would suggest that they do not go far enough. My dictionary is the Concise Oxford English Dictionary which has the following: 'vigilante: [derivatives:vigilantism] a member of a self-appointed group of people who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority' please note that this definition in no way contradicts the one offered by my opponent and simply offers a more precise clarification of the fact that they 'take the law into their own hands' 'without legal authority'. However when placed in the context of Pro's definition of 'Justified: to show to have had a sufficient legal reason' this becomes a clear oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. There can be no legal reason without legal authority. Again from COED: 'legal:based on or required by law........ law: a rule or system of rules' To stay on definitions of the word vigilante allow me to refer also to the extra detail of my opponents definition that is not present in mine: 'apprehending and punishing suspected criminals'. I wish to place emphasis on the word 'suspected'. In UK, European, International and (or so I had always assumed) US law, one of the central principles on which it operates is 'innocent until proven guilty'. Punishing suspects is therefore clearly unlawful. I cannot help thinking that if my opponent was not basing his argument on vigilantism being LEGALLY justified, my position would be a more difficult one to argue. I urge a Con vote on the basis that my worthy opponent has contradicted himself with his opening definitions. I cannot argue with my adversary's values regarding Respect for Social Order and his criterion of Respecting Human Dignity both of which are immensely admirable opinions. I fail to see though how vigilantism supports either one of them. Surely a more effective legal system and more compassionate treatment of both victims and suspects is what is required to fulfill these values, rather than the law of the jungle that is unsanctioned vigilantes ( I expect many death squads consider themselves akin to vigilantes) To tackle my opponents contentions: Contention 1: There seems to be some confusion in this argument between the notions of vigilantism and self-defence which to my mind are two very different things COED: 'self-defence:the defence of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime.' So yes quite different to vigilantism (see above) and sometimes justified because permitted by law. Also I would argue (were it not off topic) far more justifiable in a moral sense of the word. However we are of course concerned with Justice in the legal sense as explained by my worthy opponent. I don't quite understand my opponents notion of 'a society where individuals do not have the right for self defense' please clarify or give an example of this. Nor do I understand the idea of 'vigilantism in cases of self-defense' as we have just established they are two different things. Your arguments and the link you posted about the trauma suffered by victims of crime was interesting but as far as I could tell entirely irrelevant to this debate. Changes must be made in the legal system to support victims more, it doesn't mean we should be reaching for the bat-phone or rounding up a posse. Contention 2: seems to miss the obvious point that the majority of vigilantes are (unsurprisingly) not from minority groups. In the example you give the real vigilantes are those doing the lynching not their victims. That's not justice. Its anger, hate and fear. Who says a vigilante will be an altruist, I think he's more likely to be a sadist. To conclude this round I apologise again if I have gone against decorum or convention in any way and I urge people to vote Con as my opponent proves in his own definitions that vigilantism can never be justified. Thankyou.