The Instigator
aedmic
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
rangersfootballclub
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
aedmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,859 times Debate No: 7109
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

aedmic

Con

Vigilantism- Resolve: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
Define
Vigilantism- any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
Justified- to carry out what is most just
Government-otherwise known as the state, an authority setup to allow society to function and pursue justice
Failed- a state of inability to perform a normal function
Enforce -To compel observance of or obedience to: enforce a law.
Law-rule of conduct to enforce authority
Justified- to carry out what is most just
Government- [look up in black law/own]otherwise known as the state, an authority setup to allow society to function and pursue justice
Failed- a state of inability to perform a normal function
Enforce -To compel observance of or obedience to: enforce a law.
Law-rule of conduct to enforce authority

Value: justice
My value for this round is in part justice as the resolution asks us to show if vigilantism is justified, maintaining a higher level of justice falls also means being justified.

Criterion: The standard of justice the state achieves
The state maintains the highest standard of justice in the form of law and procedure because the state's standard of justice has been carefully though out and is carried out through a rigorous procedure than ensures justice

Contention 1: Vigilantism violates our own standard of justice as interpreted by the law.

Subpoint A: when a citizen takes the law into their own hands through vigilantism they are no longer upholding the law of the government. This is because the vigilant usually violates the law in pursuit of the justice they seek. One example of this is violence. Law needs enforcement and violence is the first thing that is turned to when the methods of enforcement are limited, as is often in the case of a vigilant. The KKK mobs in the early 20th century, a form of a vigilant committee pursuing their own definition of justice, white superhot, used violence in the form of lynching and beatings in order to carry out their justice and intimidate those they saw as deserving of punishment, in this case colored people. While not only was this use of violence morally repugnant, it was often in direct opposition to the law. The law prohibits murder, assault, and a variety of other violent methods the KKK used; therefore their form of vigilante was in opposition to the law.

Subpoint B: The constitution guarantees a criminal an impartial jury to be tried by. In the case of a vigilante carrying out justice, the person who is seen as a criminal by the vigilante does not have his fate decided by impartial decider. A vigilante is often far from impartial, the vigilante will already have strong preconceived notions of who is guilty, and will act impulsively on those notions. Again, vigilantism violates our own standard of law.

Contention 2: When a vigilante upholds justice, they are upholding their own interpretation of justice not the states. However a vigilante's interpretation of justice cannot measure up to the standards set by the state.

Subpoint A: When the vigilante upholds justice they are upholding their own definition of what justice is, and hence not using the system of justice that our law uses. When a criminal is seen as violating our system of law, the state goes through a lengthy procedure to determine in what ways they have violated our system of justice. They are tried in court where they are represented by lawyers who have spent their majority of their life studying the law, in some cases the fate of the criminal is decided by a judge who has spent years judging cases and interpreting the law. In some cases the criminal can appeal to different courts being tried by a whole new assortment of experts in the field of law. And even though outcomes are sometimes decided by juries, there are extensive procedures in place, such as impartiality and the necessity of having full agreement when deciding charges that assure that juries give a fair and carefully considered verdict. The vigilante on their own can never hope to measure up to the standards of justice setup by our current legal system.

Subpoint B: A vigilante's interpretation of justice in the form of retribution they carry out is often arbitrary and does not come anywhere close to the rigors setup by our current system of law. For example, person A sees person B murder a close friend. In rage, person A murders person B in order to avenge the death of his friend and carry out his interpretation of justice, in this case "an eye for an eye" interpretation. But as we can see person A determines justice not by a rigorous procedure filled with experts of law as occurs at the state level, but instead lets his emotions determine justice in the sense that he avenges a death because of the rage he feels towards person B. Emotions are a powerful things and will win out when conflicting reason, a person can easily rationalize something as being just when he has a powerful emotional incentive to as is seen with my example.

Contention 3: If society does break down, effort should be directed towards recreating the state rather than pursuing vigilante justice.

Subpoint A: When law has broken down and justice can not be carried out by the state, an individual interpreting justice and carrying it out as they see fit, will not increase justice because the vigilante is pursuing the wrong form of justice, a justice that goes against the form established by the state. Instead efforts should be taken to re-establish the state if it fails and carry out justice through the newly created state. As I have shown, the state is the best decider of justice and it's this level of justice we should strive to create, if the state happens to fail. When justice is carried out through the state, it is no longer vigilantism and hence vigilantism is no longer justified.
rangersfootballclub

Pro

I am taking a guess that you are against vigilante justice ... sorry but its quite confusing , you also posted my argument for me it pretty much seems , but for those who cannot be bothered reading it I shall put it short and simple.

vigilante justice is wrong because its against the law full stop. People may believe vigilante justice is right just like how they believe things like euthanasia should be allowed but they are still illegal.

vigilante justice is often a cruel form of justice and can often involve the person being beat to death by a angry mob , looking for blood because something happened to someone they don't know.

the idea of the justice system is to prevent vigilante justice and punish the person who has committed a crime by law. Not by the people , normally if the people have a problem with the law they should not have to resort to vigilante justice. As this can lead to them getting into serious trouble as well.

If the government has failed to enforce the law then this person must have been proved innocent ( even if the descion was debatable ), there for vigilante justice could be regarded as killing an innocent person.
Debate Round No. 1
aedmic

Con

aedmic forfeited this round.
rangersfootballclub

Pro

my oppoenet has failed to post an arguemnt and i shall wait till he does.
Debate Round No. 2
aedmic

Con

aedmic forfeited this round.
rangersfootballclub

Pro

........ oh well
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by aedmic 7 years ago
aedmic
Is there anyway to mutually withdraw this debate or agree to tie? I was originally con and I'm not going to debate con against con and I'm also not going to take pro as half of my debate I've been con and I haven't done enough research on the pro side to argue it (hence why I took con). But I don't feel it's fair for one of us to when this debate when the result will be based on a misconception.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 7 years ago
rangersfootballclub
get lost redgaurd you idiot.
Posted by aedmic 7 years ago
aedmic
Yes, I am con for this debate as it says at the top. I know pro usually goes first, but I've only written a con case for this debate and wanted to try using it, and the options let me, so I went ahead and started the debate with me posting con first. If you still want to debate this and go pro you can start another debate with the same topic and let me know when you post so I can respond with con.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 7 years ago
rangersfootballclub
ok then i will take it on and its not that obvious that hes con .
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
He's pretty clearly Con.

I'll stay away from this resolution because sometimes it's true, sometimes it isn't, and it's phrased as an absolute :)
Posted by rangersfootballclub 7 years ago
rangersfootballclub
i will accept this if you are supporting vigilantism. I am unclear on were you stand ...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
aedmicrangersfootballclubTied
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 soccerkid411 7 years ago
soccerkid411
aedmicrangersfootballclubTied
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