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

"Vigilantism is not a correction to a problem, but a mere inconsistent, irrational, capricious compensation for a problem" It is because of this that I shall negate and concur with the following. --------------------------------------------------------- "The Value for the round is Justice as prescribed by the resolution. Justice is defined here by the platonic definition of giving each his due. This means that both criminal and victim must be given their due to achieve justice. Where the government cannot punish the criminal and attempt to give the victim justice, it is justifiable for others to step in to do so. Thus the criterion for the round is the proportional allocation of punishment and reward. That means that each person deserves what they are due, which is sometimes referred to as ‘just deserts.' The resolution promotes justice because it provides all involved their just deserts." ========================================================================= Justice is a highly esteemed Value. Your definition of justice is acceptable for the round. However, your VC of proportional allocation does not hold to your side of the debate. Let's break down the true meaning of the words, "proportional allocation." Proportional - In proportion; in due degree; adapted relatively; consistency on something Allocation- The process or procedure for allocating things In breaking down the word you basically see that, to have this word in support of your case, you must have proportional punishment. The problem with vigilantism is that it has no proportionality. The first place it shows no proportionality is in whatever the "Vigilante" decides to do in order to get back at the criminal. Because they are not locking these people they "punish" away in prisons, it is not proportional to the other people who have broken the same law that the criminal have. The second way it is not proportional is because different vigilantes in different areas are going to punish with different ways, which shows no sign of proportionality what so ever, seeing as how the definition includes consistency. In LD debate, you know your value exists, when your VC exists. It is true that you have justice when you have proportional allocation, however, Vigilantism has neither. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Contention 1. As a last resort, Vigilantism promotes justice for criminals" ================================================= On first site, this appears ok. However it is very flawed. As I said before, Justice is only ok, if it shows proportionality, in which in the case of vigilantism it does not. By definition, vigilantism works outside of the law, meaning THEY BREAK THE LAW. What this means, is that by "punishing the criminal" they in-turn, become a criminal themselves, counterproductive would you say? Vigilante justice is quite amusing. The idea that a murdering, thieving, anger management needing abusive citizen decides that someone else has gone too far and needs to be punished by them because they somehow feel that they are more just than the government, is morally reprehensible. Because these people aren't going out and buying prisons to lock criminals up in, ANYTHING they do will be unconstitutional, dehumanizing, degrading, and morally wrong. Even the fact that they're punishing criminals is wrong. Take a look at this section of the declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, which among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This is the exact problem with vigilantism. It is self-regulated, self-appointed, self-assessed, and every other thing that has to do with SELF. In the declaration of independence and in the constitution it is made clear that governments have their power over people because the people give there consent to the government and not the other way around. Nobody from birth (whether it be a king, dictator, or president) has the power to govern if someone does not afford that person that right. Because Vigilantism is the attempt of trying to govern someone without their consent, it is not only wrong, but MORALLY wrong. ---------------------------------------------------------- "Contention 3: Used as a last resort, vigilantism promotes justice for society" ========================================= Are you sure? Allowing any and everyone to step in and harm any random person at any random time because you feel that they are getting away with something […] is beneficial to society? Failure to enforce a law is a problem with the nation/state and should be resolved within the nation/state. The people that should deal with this, is not the everyday lay-citizen that is not appointed or educated in criminal justice. It should be resolved by the representatives, council-men, senators, governors, mayors, secretaries, presidents, and other appointed officials. Allowing random citizens to enact their random bias form of justice is not a justice at all, but is an actual injustice! Vigilantism is not a correction to a problem, but a mere compensation for a problem, which is the reason I am obliged to negate the resolution. Time and time again you refer to vigilantism as "filling a void." It is undeniable that a void is being filled, however, what we're arguing is IF THE VOID IS BEING FILLED WITH SOMETHING THAT IS JUST IN ITS ALLOCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT. And the answer I no, it is not. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WITHIN YOUR CONTENTION 4 ========================== Above in your previous arguments, you state (basically) that the resolution gives you no burden to prove that vigilante is the ONLY way of providing justice, but that it is justifiable. First off, yes you are right the resolution gives you no such burden. However, you have quoted within your fourth contention, the words: "In fact, Kelly D. Hine says vigilantism may be the only option. When an established governmental system for enforcing the criminal law does not exist, the only means available to protect Becarria's ‘repository of the public well being' is private action." So the resolution doesn't give you the burden, you gave it to yourself, so now you must uphold that as well. Thank you for the topic, I'm looking forward to your response.