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

I will start of rebutting my opponents case Valued Premise: Justice Rebuttal 1: Martin Luther King JR. once said, "Justice denied somewhere diminishes justice everywhere". Because the vigilante will not be able to provide everyone within their community justice it diminishes justice. Also since we do not know whether vigilantes are protecting human rights there is no way to achieve justice, Rebuttal 2: The bakassi boys of Nigeria prove that vigilantism is the rationalization of crime, no checks on cruel and unusual punishment. - The other day I saw on television the news of an armed robber apprehended by the police a few hours after the crime was committed. He was charged, sent to jail, and the police closed the case. It got me thinking about my home country Nigeria, and how a wave of crime took over in some cities a few years back by a group who took the law into their hands. The Bakassi Boys are a group of youths known for their anti-crime vigilantism. They came into being in the late 1990s, and, in addition to being armed with machetes, guns and charms , they were officially supported and financed by the state government. They operate in eastern Nigeria, in West Africa, and they are sometimes accused of illegal activity and human rights abuses, yet they still enjoy popular support from the government and most of the citizens. This is because the people are tired of the police taking bribes and failing to fight the massive crime wave in the area. They hunted down criminals, cutting off their limbs for stealing, and burning suspected rapists, and murderers alive with a tire attached to their necks. Judge, the bakassi boys fall under the definition of vigilantism, and while the government, the people, and even themselves believed that they were doing justice, you must realize how skewed their perception of justice had become. they think because they are punishing criminals, they are doing justice, but the ends obviously do not justify the means, judge we must stop the rationalization of crime and it starts with a negative ballot. They do not acheive justice. VC: Social Contract Rebuttal 1:The vigilante is not the government so this is irrelevant, and secondly when the vigilante commits crimes the people will look to the government for help and since they can not provide it, the social contract is further dissolved. So through vigilantes the social contract is further dissolved I agree with the definition Contention 1: I agree this has no relevance Contention 2: My opponent says that the vigilante ensures justice. But I would like to turn this argument, Vigilantes will lead to anarchy, (my attack on this is my contention 3). Contention 3: OK, all my opponent is saying that the government is illegitimate and the vigilante would prosecute. But it is impossible for a vigilante to prosecute a crime. Since the the government has FAILED the vigilante can not prosecute legally. Therefore the vigilante would ultimately lead to violence Contention 4: My opponent makes the statement in is contention 4, "It is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it." This contradicting his case where he states that vigilantes are not revolutionaries. But when you abolish the government you are one. So I have countered turn and found the Affirmative case to be contradictory, now I will post my case. 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. The Government refers to the United States government and its checks and balances. Including the judiciary, Executive, and legislative branches. For this debate my value premise will be Justice, which can be defined as giving each their due. Justice is meant more for the society as a whole than for the individual victims because it is designed to prove repeatedly that people are safe within their society. Valued Criterion: Protection of Rights Vigilantism offers no protections of due process rights, no checks on cruel or unusual punishment, no accountability to any exterior force. Suspects--or even known criminals--are still humans, deserving of fair trials and humane treatment. The key point is this resolution is "when the government has failed to enforce the law". However, the government's motivation for failing to enforce the law is not addressed, nor is it implied in the wording of the topic. There are many potential reasons why a government may fail to enforce the law. Contention 1: Vigilantes abuse the rights of the accused. Sub-point A: Vigilantes lack procedural safeguards In the case of vigilantism, there are not necessary safeguards to make sure that the right people are punished. Even if vigilantes decided to follow certain rules, there is no guarantee that these rules will neither sufficiently protect the accused, nor that the community agrees with the rules and safeguards that a vigilante mob chooses to enforce. If the point of legal rules is that they reflect the community's wishes, then allowing an unaccountable group of vigilantes to deal out punishment as they see fit will violate communal norms and may end up punishing the innocent. This is saying that the vigilantes will get away with their wrong doings. Sub-point B: Vigilante violence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment Minh A. Luong states: "Studies from all over the world show that vigilante justice is likely to be violent because the moral outrage the vigilantes feel makes them believes that extreme violence is necessary. Vigilante justice is often carried out in front of family members causing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and results in a substantial long term health care to victims. Since the state could not legitimately carry out these kinds of punishments, vigilantes should not have the right to do so either." This is saying that because vigilantes act out of moral outrage their rage will lead to unnecessary violence committed against the accused. Contention 2: Vigilantism creates a culture of violence Society creates and reinforces its values through actions. Normally, societies make socially useful value choices because it is better for their society in the long run. When the society makes a decision that following the law is not useful, it creates an underlying disrespect for the law. The solution to this problem should be not to violate the law by allowing private citizens to take the law into their own hands. Additionally, because vigilante justice often entails private citizens taking actions against perpetrators of crimes, it sends the message saying that violence is socially acceptable. Social peace and order are generally useful because they allow every person the right to pursue happiness. Minh A. Luong also states: "When violence is legitimized as a value, people start to believe that it is legitimate to interfere in other people's life's, which undermines the basic human right of self determination". Vigilantism occurs in third world countries like Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Because of these vigilantes these countries have weak government's dysfunctional justice, and ineffective law enforcement." This is saying that vigilante violence leads to weakened governments which will lead to larger amounts of violence, in communities. I am sorry but my case does not ift. I wiill post my C3 in the comments hoping it will go into the debate. Thank you, and sorry