The Instigator
TheCategorical
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
mrinal71996
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,902 times Debate No: 7742
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

TheCategorical

Pro

Hi, you may know me, mrinal sharma.....I'm Sergio and veery booored
Vigilantism is justified when government has failed to enforce the law: I affirm
Value: Justice
VC: The Categorical Imperative
Thesis: The categorical imperative implies that an action to be just must have those intentions. Otherwise the action would be unjust or lesser justice. I will even go to the extent that government with the intent of pay, or as a job is not just. Furthermore I will classify Vigilantes as just for my following contentions. The link between my value and my vc is as follows: The categorical imperative outlines what is just, in following it we achieve justice.
For clarity in the round, I offer the following definitions:
Vigilantism: The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals with the intention of achieving justice.
Justified: to show to have had a sufficient legal reason.
Government: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization.
Failed: to be or become absent or inadequate.
Enforce: to carry out effectively.
The Law: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
Observation 1: Vigilantism in my definition will be left in ambiguity as to further understand how truly, the concept of vigilantism is just, not just one occasion.

Contention 1: The categorical imperative will be divided into three sub-divisions which will be my sub points. The divisions will be as follows:
A: The intention
The intention of the vigilantes is to achieve justice because there is no other virtue achieved in being a vigilante. For example the vigilante organization Sombra Negra in El Salvador has the goals of cleansing the social abominations in the society, they also think that their ultimate goal is to create justice and finally perfect El Salvador. Furthermore the commonly used term vigilante justice refers to the intention of the vigilante to achieve his personal justice. Lastly the intention of the vigilante is indisputable because of the absolute absence of virtues to risking one's life to help out one's society
B: The effect
The effect of the vigilante can be disputed much more easily but I will explain simply that the average of vigilantes achieve their goals and intentions. However, many times in history they are not identified as such. For example, Julius Caesar, He took over control of the Roman society and continued as had been done earlier, apprehending and punishing suspected criminals. Some would call this a dictatorship, but I disagree. The original government was disbanded and Julius Caesar took over as the head of Rome, however there was no government. He was the one who commanded the law and was truly a vigilante. Many cases as these are filled in history. The Sombra Negra, as mentioned earlier, has also had a positive effect in El Salvador. According to www.knowgangs.com there was a 3% decrease in gang related murders in 1994 and an increase in 5% in 2004 when the vigilante group had officially been not operating for 3 years.
C: The after effect
The after effect of vigilantism is that the stability of the society is achieved. The vigilante works toward the stability and organization of the government. When the government is viable then vigilantes will stop their acts. Thus when the desired effect is achieved the desired after effect will be achieved.
D: The exceptions
While there may be some exceptions that my opponent may try to use against me I will further use the categorical imperative to show how isolated cases are not useful in this debate. The categorical imperative states that any average individual can figure out justice because they compelled toward it by either their fellow man or their sense of logic. Logic leads to justice in individual situations, whereas the topic of debate is universal situations. Since there are both individual and universal situations and both can be distinguished by the average man the situation and judgment are just.
mrinal71996

Con

I negate the resolution: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
Because Justice is the core of all values and thus is intrinsically valuable, I value Justice. Aristotle, who many consider to be the greatest philosopher of all time, defines Justice as acting in the best interest of society as a whole, In other words, a notion of Justice as social utility. 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.
My criterion for achieving justice and weighing arguments in this debate is Protecting 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 fair trials and humane treatment.
My first contention is that vigilantism provides no checks and balances and therefore provides no genuine way of ensuring justice or protection of rights. . This person would prosecute as they please and would do only according to their moral values and would disregard the will of the entire society and that would eventually result in injustice.
My second contention is that Vigilantism is unjust because the actions of vigilantes often fail to coincide with the true will of the people. Vigilantes strive for swift and sure punishment: the problem, however, is that vigilante "justice" if often TOO swift and TOO sure. Vigilante "justice" offers no room for due process, and the decisions of guilt and magnitude of retribution are issued solely by the vigilante(s). This means that vigilante justice often fails to take into account the respect for human dignity and true justice demanded by popular sovereignty, and is therefore unjust, partly by fault of the ineptitude and inexperience of the vigilantes in interpreting the true will of the people.
My third contention is that Vigilantism is often unjust because vigilantes lack the necessary means to reform their victims or to repair their victim's actions. Unlike government systems, vigilante justice most often resorts to violent, physical measures as retribution for their victim's crimes. There is no reform of the victim attempted, no lesson has been taught, and if the punishments issued by the vigilante(s) do not kill the criminal, the victim is free to wreak havoc upon society. Vigilantes also cannot make repartee action for the criminal's actions, either directly through a mandate of community service nor indirectly through fining the criminal. Consequently, vigilantism ultimately opposes the maintenance of popular sovereignty because it opposes the progression that is a basic part of the true will of the people: it impedes the moral progression of the criminal by a lack of reform and additionally makes no effort to further society by repairing the negative impacts of criminal activity.
My fourth contention is that Governmental reform is the correct response to a lack of action against criminal activity. So far, we have established that vigilante "justice" fails to meet the standards of popular sovereignty, both because of the ineptitude of vigilantes' view of the true will of the people and because of the physical inability to ensure retribution that will further both the victim and society. The obvious solution is to reform the existing government. The whole job of politicians is to maintain the true will of the people. Therefore, reform of the existing government ensures that the deciding body has both the expertise and the physical ability to issue truly just punishments.
My fifth contention is that John Locke says-"...it is unreasonable for Men to be Judges in their own Cases that Self-love will make men partial to themselves and to their Friends. And on the other side, that Ill Nature, Passion and Revenge will carry them too far in punishing others. And hence nothing but Confusion and Disorder will follow.... I easily grant, that civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature, which must certainly be great, where men may be judges in their own case, since it is easy to be imagined, that he who was so unjust as to do his brother an injury, will scarce be so just as to condemn himself for it..." Left in the state of nature, the vigilante is without accountability; no vigilante will punish himself, Locke argues, for committing injustice in the name of upholding the law. The proper recourse to state failure is the creation of another legitimate state.
Because of the lack of checks and balances, rights will not be protected. The vigilante could do as he pleases
Debate Round No. 1
TheCategorical

Pro

My opponent shows ONLY attacks on my sub point B so extend all further arguments.
As we have the same value I can not attack it, however,Protecting Rights will be attacked. First, Rights aren't necessarily just. Let me explain. Ex. You have the right to kill anyone. Is this just? Second, My value criterion is much more closely linked to my value because both your value is incompatible and you provide no link. Third, since you have provided no link and your vc is incompatible you must ;ose this debate already.
c1: ( stolen from snelld7) Checks and balances are useless. Look at America. There is corruption, ponzi schemes. Prostitution rings, corruption, coercion, etc. With checks and balances NOTHING IS ACHEIVED. They are not efficient because people work their way around them ex. Nixon, Madoff, Blagojevich, Stanford Financial group, Enron, etc.
c2: ( stolen from clockwork) First, explain what is the true will of the people? Second why is popular sovereignty in your case? Third the true will of the people isn't necessarily Justice. Since we now know this the people may will anarchy or ???. Coinciding with the true will is not the job of a vigilante, it is the job of the government.
c3. (stolen from rulshock) First, you must understand that whatever you uphold does not go with your points for c2,3,4,5 you provide no link. Second you say that vigilantes lack the means. However, there is no purpose for reform when there is no effect in it. From a study conducted by the The Welsher group, we can see that only 3% of released criminals don't commit a crime again, but once released it is expected that 12% won't be caught again even if they commit crimes.
c4. First I want to call this an excess of point. Second governmental reform is useless. Why should we let a government that will return to what it was doing earlier. I will defer to my c3 rebuttal to prove that reform doesn't work. Third it is too expensive referring to amounts of work and money. Fourth, the government version of justice ( if you were right) would be different from the vice president or press. or whatever, just as the vigilante.
c5. I will concede c5 to you , YES, NO MAN SHOULD TRY HIS OWN CASE. But the vigilante won't. First, if a vigilante commits a crime then he will be duly prosecuted by his fellows in the vigilance committee.

OVERKILL: since my opponent has not effectively rebutted any of my contentions I must so far win. Tips from a 7th grader:
First don't steal points
Second Work your value criterion more
Provide links
etc.
mrinal71996

Con

mrinal71996 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheCategorical

Pro

TheCategorical forfeited this round.
mrinal71996

Con

mrinal71996 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
"Stolen from Rulshok"

Who stole it from me.l
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
TheCategoricalmrinal71996Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Lazy 7 years ago
Lazy
TheCategoricalmrinal71996Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70