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

My oponnents VC Autonomy is not a desirable trait : the right to set your own agenda to conduct your own affairs with a minimum of outside interference. I propose that the concept of autonomy is extended to cover the smallest group in society: the group of one, the individual.To be autonomous is to have the right to self-determination to order your affairs as you see fit. Of course, that doesn't give you the right to impose your order or beliefs on any one else, because they're autonomous also. So, this brings us to the point of who decides what is justice. What you consider justice and what I consider justice may be remarkably different. So if you act and set your own agenda based on your theory of justice than it may be a skewed form of justice in my view and therefore actually being unjust. I would once again like to state that is why we have a system of checks and balances to make sure that what is just is actually just. His value and my value of justice are better upheld through the protection of rights. TO respond that is happening now and we are talking about the United States. Once again i offer my definition of government to limit the debate and allow for some negative ground. The Government- refers to the United States government and its checks and balances. Including the judiciary, executive and legislative branch. We must look to my definition of government because he has dropped his definition and because it is more topical because it allows for the negative to actually build a case. I offer my definition of Vigilantism again My definition of vigilantism comes from the American University of Law System and therefore outweighs his definiton and we must use the definition 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. I would like to state that the resolution says nothing about the future and only implies that the government has failed to enforce the law. The law does not become void if it is not being enforced because that would be anarchy. Autonomy leads to anarchy because Autonomy is the right to set your own agenda to conduct your own affairs with a minimum of outside interference. I propose that the concept of autonomy is extended to cover the smallest group in society: the group of one, the individual.To be autonomous is to have the right to self-determination to order your affairs as you see fit. Thus leading to anarchy. Anarchy bad because it is not constricted by a set of rules, doctrines, or laws allowing people to run wild and create there own agendas like my opponent so desperately wants with justifying vigilantism. People can be wrongly convicted but it is highly unlikely as the death penalty. There is absolutely no proof for this statement. Before any person is executed in this country, twelve members of a carefully selected jury have to decide -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- that a defendant is guilty. The possibility of an innocent person being executed is extremely small, and continues to decrease with the improvement of forensic science. It is true that death row prisoners have been released, but it is not always true that they were innocent. Consider the following fact: A judgment of acquittal is final. Even if overwhelming evidence is later uncovered, the prosecution can never appeal. A retrial would constitute "double jeopardy" which is not permitted under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Likewise, if a conviction is reversed on appeal because the evidence of guilt was legally insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant cannot be retried. Furthermore, if a court decides that the evidence brought against the defendant was legally insufficient, it is not saying that the defendant was actually innocent. By making this decision, the court is merely saying that the prosecution did not prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, with vigilantism the offended party because the judge, jury, and executioner all in one thus killing the innoncent. My opponent attacks my fifth contention by bringing a weapon into view. Well, using force means you have to ability to fight to protect them, so by exercising your right to protect you can fight back even if they have a weapon and subdue them, issue a citizens arrest, and call the police. I would like to furthermore add that. Specifying a few instances of where vigilantism is acceptable is a huge ground skew. The burden doesn't even function under you defending multiple instances, you could win off of extending anyone of them. That's also a reciprocity issue, there would be no turn ground on that AC, because even if in one scenario vigilatism is bad, if it's ok in another it's justified. Further, I don't even think that interp is true, the qualifier is "when the government fails to act" not just debate about vague instances of vigilantism. He fails to show how vigilantism does not lead to anarchy sufficiently enough and through his VC we can see that it does. Through my VC more people are protected and kept safe therefore my VC of Protecting Rights is better in bringing out justice. Thank You I urge you to vote neg.