MIG tourney R3: Vigilantism is Justified when the U.S. Government has Failed to Uphold the Law

I thank TUF for this debate and man-is-good for the opportunity to participate in his tournament. TUF's opening round is in the Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate format, but he has extended me the grace of not having to strictly follow the format myself since I am but a humble debating amateur whose only exposure to LD is via Wikipedia.TUF and I agree that justice is the value at stake here. He aims to show that the resolution, when affirmed, increases justice. I, on the other hand, will show that when the resolution is affirmed, justice is decreased. I will present my argument against the resolution (Negative Constructive) then follow it with my rebuttal to his contentions (Cross Examination).Negative ConstructionNC1: Vigilantism is self-refutingVigilantism is, by definition, the enforcing of justice by citizens outside the regulation of the criminal justice system. Since it is not regulated, an act of vigilantism might be too severe, in which case, the response is more vigilantism. The only way to ensure vigilantism is truly just is to regulate it. Regulating vigilantism will require the criminal justice system to oversee it, in which case it ceases to be vigilantism and becomes an arm of the criminal justice system itself. Therefore, vigilantism only works if it is not truly vigilantism. Ergo, the resolution is negated.Cross ExaminationAC1: Vigilantism only ensures the government's goal's [sic] are carried out to peak satisfaction.(NOTE: For those readers than chose to skip all the links in TUF's first round, note that one of those links contains his arguments for this contention. I just want to make sure the readers know to what I am referring.)My opponent takes for granted that vigilantism is itself always carried out justly, and this is where we see TUF's biggest blunder. He criticizes the failings of the criminal justice system for its copious regulations, yet those regulations are designed precisely to mitigate human error. Yet, when the criminal justice system fails, he finds it perfectly reasonable to place justice in the hands of even fewer flawed humans who themselves do not operate under any such regulations.The justice system—as slow and exploitable as it is—is designed around the notion that due process is an essential element to liberty, as it works to ensure fewer innocent people are found guilty at the expense of truly guilty people escaping justice, and frankly, TUF's criticism against it leaves much to be desired.First, he links to an article about Mapp v. Ohio to quote Benhamin Cardozo, "The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered." TUF assumes this is automatically a bad thing, but if he read the rest of his own link, he would see that it goes on explain that the reasoning behind the "exclusionary rule" was to protect citizens. To quote TUF's article:"Fellow police officers are only too aware that it is both very important and very difficult to obtain evidence, and they are often frustrated by the fact that they 'know' someone is guilty, but cannot get the evidence necessary for a conviction. How effective is the police department likely to be in disciplining officers who break the rules to get evidence that might be used to take a 'known' criminal out of circulation?"Next, TUF sites the Bureau of Justice Statistics to claim that "60-80% of all crimes are likely to be set free." Now, if that number seems questionable, that's because it has no verifiable truth to it whatsoever. First, he doesn't tell us which year he these tables come from, so I just examined that most recent one, 2008. Second, I could not find this value anywhere in tables 91-108, which TUF sites. Third, those tables are statistics on crimes reported to the police. Not one table mentions "crimes set free." As far as anyone can tell, these numbers are completely fictional.What it boils down to is this: TUF needs to show that vigilantism increases justice, yet he cannot substantiate the failures of the criminal justice system nor quantify in any meaningful way just how effective vigilantism will be in compensating for said failures. This whole contention is just wishful thinking.AC2: The people have a right to defend the Justice system.I can only assume TUF meant to say "The people have a right to defend Justice," not the "Justice System" since he just spent his first contention debasing it. But even with this correction, do people have this right?To answer this question, we must understand something very important about human rights. Given one person a right means taking another's freedom. To say "Kevin has a right to life" is semantically equivalent to saying "No one has the freedom to take Kevin's life." So, when asking whether people have the right to vigilantism, it is equivalent to asking that the targets of vigilantism do not have the freedom of due process. TUF needs to convince us, then, that due process is not a right. This presents a steep hill for my opponent to climb for due process has been considered a right since the Fifth Amendment: [1]No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. (Emphasis mine)The whole point of due process is to avoid the very thing that vigilantism risks. Moreover, the whole point of a trial by jury is to ensure citizens are in fact involved in the justice process. So, I have to ask, what need is there really for vigilantism beyond allowing for victims to respond with vengeance? Is due process worth replacing with emotionally charged, reactionary violence?Now let's examine TUF's hypotheticals in the context of US law: It is Legal for a police officer to fire a gun at a guilty man who expresses violent behavior. It is Illegal for a citizen to fire a gun at a guilty man who expresses violent behavior. A 19-year old mother Sarah McKinley shot and killed a man intruding into her home, yet she did not have to set foot in a court room. [2] The right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment and currently all states that uphold the right to self-defense when one's life is reasonably threatened. [3] It is Legal for a government official to detain and arrest a man who has stolen, or violated another individuals [sic] property. It is Illegal for a Citizen to detain and arrest a man who has stolen, or violated another individuals [sic] property. "Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen". [4]Neither scenario is true, so neither scenario is convincing enough to eradicate due process and grant citizens the right to vigilantism. Thus, this contention fails to affirm the resolution as well.ConclusionMy opponent is trying to convince us that there are gigantic gaps in justice that just don't exist. The justice system already allows citizens to protect themselves. In extreme cases, we can even respond in violence. In other cases, we have the courts. The justice system is not perfect, but TUF hasn't done anything to convince us that vigilantism will bring about such perfection and that due process should be reduced in favor of an unregulated vigilante system.I argue that vigilantism creates an endless cycle of violence that can only be stopped with government regulation, thereby rendering the resolution self-refuting in the first place. For it to work, it must be managed by the very justice system it is designed to circumvent.Sources http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...