Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law

I wish for this debate to be LD style only: I affirm. Vigilantism is most properly defined through five main characteristics as pointed out by Professor William Burrows, Vigilantes: (1)"are members of an organized committee; (2) are established members of the community; (3) proceed for a finite time and with definite goals; (4) claim to act as a last resort because of a failure of the established law enforcement system; and (5) claim to work for the preservation and betterment of the existing system." Thus the vigilantes do not intend to act in an unnecessary manner, but rather they act as a last resort because of a failed government, and act only for the preservation and betterment of the existing government. Insofar as this is true, it is now necessary to determine a proper, justified definition of a failed government. A failed government is most properly defined as a law enforcement body that has failed to deter crimes. This is true because the number one, sole purpose of a law enforcement body is to deter crimes in order to protect its citizens. Moreover, a government with no deterrence is a clear definition for anarchy. Thus if the negative advocates that vigilantism is violent or that it harms society in any way, it should be looked past in the round insofar as vigilantism is the only effective response. At this point, the burden is on the negative to prove that there are not only other options, but that they are more effective than vigilantism. Thus that gives me the burden to prove the effectiveness of vigilantism. This brings me to my value of justice. Justice is most properly defined as giving each their due. Justice, which also ties in with deterrence and protecting citizens, is the ultimate goal of any law enforcement system. Because you cannot achieve this goal with a failed government, my criterion is ensuring means for governmental legitimacy. A legitimate government must represent all of its people effectively. This is the most proper criterion for the round because without a legitimate government, or without any government, there would be no order to society, impacting in endless cycles of chaos and destruction. This shows a clear link to justice insofar as you're granting the citizens their due by representing them effectively and protecting their right to life. My thesis is that vigilante law enforcement is better than the absence of law enforcement and that even if there is limited failures of a legal system present, vigilantism would still be justified. Contention 1: vigilantism is an effective law enforcement system when the government fails because it protects the indisputable rights of its citizens, thus achieving governmental legitimacy. In the case that law fails, community protection is absent, thus the society needs some enforcement mechanism in order to have a chance for survival. Sub Point A: Vigilantism is used as a tool for self-preservation when the state does not protect its citizens. Vigilantism serves as the right of the people to exercise their sovereign power in order to defend themselves in the absence of the state. William Culberson furthers "Another point in the philosophy of vigilantism is popular sovereignty. Vigilante action in the nineteenth century was occasioned by an increase in the ideology of popular sovereignty and previous experiences of private punishment. A maturing belief in democracy from the American Revolution to the age of Jackson and the increase in vigilante movements, during and afterwards, coincided with an acknowledgement that the rule of the people was superior. "The right of the people to take care of themselves, if the law does not is an indisputable right," said Professor Bigger of the local normal school to the vigilantes of Johnson County, Missouri in 1867. This was encouragement from a learned man, and extending this argument meant that vigilantism was but a case of the people exercising their sovereign power in the interest of self-preservation. For if the instruments of state power do not exceed private capacities, government ceases to rule and private power becomes the last resort of maintaining the social system." Thus the impact of justifying vigilantism is that the indisputable right of self preservation is upheld, and in turn, the government is increasing its legitimacy insofar as its people are being represented effectively. Sub Point B: Vigilantism preserves justice and the right of popular sovereignty when the government fails to do so. The government exists "for the people", thus when it fails it's up to the citizens to fend for themselves when necessary. Ray Abrahams furthers "As Bancroft's term ‘popular tribunal' suggests, this position in its simplest expression emphasizes that law, society, and the state exist for ‘the people', and that the people must and will fend for themselves when necessary. This idea is, of course, enshrined in the United States constitutional doctrine of ‘popular sovereignty', but its attraction is much wider. In many different parts of the world, vigilantes and their sympathizers—and indeed some of their critics—argue that, if the state and other institutions worked as they were meant to, no one would look elsewhere for security of life and property. But when police and courts are non-existent, weak, or corrupt, the people will naturally fall back on their own resources. They will form posses and committees, and criminals and other public enemies will be hunted down and punished." Thus justifying vigilantism results in not only the protection of their rights, but the protection of their own nature as well. Contention 2: the society needs some type of legitimate law enforcement when the government fails to do so, thus justifying vigilantism. Sub Point A: Vigilantism is a legitimate law enforcement body because it deters when the government fails to do so. Hine explains "Vigilante justice fills the law enforcement void. Before the vigilante action, the probability of incurring sanctions for criminal activity was negligible. With the vigilance committee on patrol, this probability increases dramatically. By reintroducing the possibility of apprehension and punishment, the vigilante enforcer provides significant levels of deterrence to society's criminal element." Thus vigilantism leads to deterrence thus it's properly justified as an enforcing body, whether there is law present or not. Sub Point B: Vigilantism can spur governmental reform, as shown empirically in Tanzania. Suzette Heald explains "The sungusungu have come to operate in a distinctive space; co-opting government and, in turn, co-opted by it. Communities have taken back power, developed their own policing capacity and, in so doing, effectively re-invented themselves. With reformatory agendas, they have evolved new normative structures and modes of co-operation and organization which both actually and potentially have far-reaching consequences for economic and social welfare. A new vision of community responsibility is heralded and held out as an ideal. In the same way, perhaps, they have reformed and reclaimed the state, with the administration demonstrating an increasing responsiveness to the priorities of local communities and allowing them a greater degree of autonomy in the management of their own affairs." Thus this is the most important impact coming out of this round insofar as the agent of action is being reformed. The overall impact is that law enforcement is increased, rather with or without previous enforcement, which in turn, ensures a means for a legitimate government. Thus it is properly justified as law enforcement when previous law is present or not, so you affirm