Vigilantism is justified when the justice system fails to enforce the law.

I will not be using LD style, but will try to stay similar to the standard DDO style. I affirm the resolution: Vigilantism is justified when the justice system fails to enforce the law. As a side note, I recommend that my opponent a) use contentions and b) make his paragraphs shorter. (a) will make his case easier to understand, and (b) will make it easier to read. I do applaud him for his density of arguments, though. Definitions The first two definitions were put forth by my opponent, and I am putting them under the Definitions category for clarity. Vigilantism: The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals. (Black's Law Dictionary) Justice System: A Republican government. Republic: government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (Merriam-Webster) Vigilante: One who practices vigilantism. Criminal: One who commits an act forbidden by public law. (paraphrased from Merriam-Webster) *** My opponent's first paragraph is almost entirely plagiarized from . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... I believe the other paragraphs are original, though I cannot be sure. *** ======== Rebuttals ======== "Everybody in this small mountain community knew that Timothy Chandler had been arrested on child pornography charges. " This is an example of badly-carried-out vigilantism. But it is only an example. It implies very little about vigilantism in general. "his wife was killed" That was not an act of vigilantism, as it was not the apprehension of criminals. So this is not a point against my case. "[V]igilantes act in self-preservation, and they also take the law into their own hands. " There is nothing in the definition of vigilantism about self-preservation. Vigilantes are protecting the law. If they also happen to be more concerned about self-preservation, it is not because of their vigilantism. "By taking the law into their own hands and dismantling its social purpose. .. " In what way are they dismantling the law's social purpose? On the contrary; by upholding the law, they are maintaining the law's integrity by enforcing it. If the government failed to enforce the law and vigilantes did not stop in, the law would become meaningless. "Vigilantes are dangerous, because they often do not have the proper training of weapons and legal protocol to make informed deacons of a suspected criminal. " 1. They often do have proper training. 2. When they do not, the harm actually caused by lack of training is generally limited. 3. Even if vigilantes are dangerous, they are not as dangerous as the criminal whose very intention is to be harmful. "They can also mishandle a weapon. .. " Vigilantes enforce the law. Whether or not they mishandle weapons is beside the point. Some vigilantes misuse weapons; so do some non-vigilantes. "The justice system is far better than vigilantism. " Not if it fails, which it does according to the resolution. "Vigilantes, no matter what definition we operate under, are not interested in fixing the root problem of the governmental error" What governmental error? The error that prevents the government from enforcing the law? That's really irrelevant. "the justice system was designed to reform to the specific needs of the people to better serve justice. " There is no such thing as "the justice system". There are many different justice systems; there are many different Republican justice systems. "Vigilantist do not act in a constructive manner by reforming themselves or the government" That is not their job. Their job is to apprehend and punish suspected criminals, which is very constructive. ". .. and can therefore, no matter under what circumstances, act in best interest of everyone. " I do not see how this follows. "How are you deterring crime if you punish a person that is potentially innocent? " Other justice systems are constantly punishing people who are "potentially" innocent. Maybe the reason this theoretical justice system failed is because this citizen from Pennsylvania is in charge. "The justice system is better also because its procedures allow it to remain consistent, which vigilantism does not and therefore makes it an unstable, unpredictable, and dangerous solution. " Vigilantism is only conducive to so much inconsistency. Vigilantes have their own moral code, and vigilante groups have even stronger codes. Instability is unlikely, unpredictability would not be any worse than any other justice system, and there is no reason to suspect heightened danger. "While they claim to uphold justice, there is no official justice in anarchy. " The key word here is "official". Official justice is unnecessary. "vigilantism is socially incorrect, dangerous, and inferior to the current justice system even when it fails" Even when it fails? My opponent has provided no evidence for this claim. "I would rather live with law that sometimes fails than with no law at all. " Good quote, but wrong on two points. 1) The law does not "sometimes" fail. The law has failed. There is no expectation of the law working again. If it does, it is outside the parameters of this debate. 2) Vigilantism is not the same as no law. Vigilantes apprehend and punish suspected criminals, and criminals have broken the law. Without law there are no criminals, and without criminals there are no vigilantes. So not only is vigilantism not the same as no law, but vigilantism cannot exist without law. ================ Contention 1: The Social Contract John Locke's Social Contract says that it is the purpose of the government to protect its citizens. In return, its citizens submit authority to the government. If either side fails to uphold their end, the contract is broken. Therefore, if the government has failed to enforce the law and protect its citizens, the contract is broken and citizens are no longer obligated to submit their authority to the government. Vigilantism is justified in the eye of the government's contract with society. Contention 2: Preservation of Society Without vigilantism, law enforcement would be nonexistent. Society would quickly collapse into anarchy. Criminals would run loose. Morals would decline. The concerned citizens of society would be unable to protect their very own communities against crime and injustice. Only if vigilantism is allowed will society remain relatively safe from a total collapse into chaos. Vigilantes are the only line of defense between society and chaos: society ought to accept them with open arms. I eagerly await my opponent's response.