Reaver

Mar 16 2009, 04:02 PM

Now that I'm debating this topic at the state debate, I should get involved.

I'll start with the Affirmative.

Society, arguably, must uphold a standard of justice which ensures that we offer the same standard of justice to the minorities in society - be it the socioeconomic or racial minority. If the government has truly failed to enforce the law, a new minority arises which we must extend justice to: the unprotected. The Social Contract presented by John Locke permits that they may break the law, but his doesn't answer the question of should they break the law to uphold justice.

I would like to frame this first idea under the mantle that ignorance is not excused before the law. If you drink and drive, even if you had no rational decision to run down a person, you are held fully responsible for your actions: you are assumed to have made that decision rationally. If the law holds everyone to this standard, than we must assume that those breaking the law do so with full knowledge of their actions and full intent of the situation; the double-standard would provide a fatal bias to the situation.

Now, since we know the agent - the individual relying on vigilante justice - acts within rational bounds, we know that he looks to protect the minority in society who is unprotected by the justice system. Therefore, he merely acts as an extension of the law even though he breaks it: as the ultimate goal of law is to bring about justice in society. Beecause such a person works to extend justice to the minority whom the law has failed, we can assert that vigilante justice is indeed a viable solution when the government has failed to enforce the law.

However, this also eliminates the possibilty for self-motivated desire amongst those using vigilante justice. The agent acts only to uphold justice in society, not to take overt revenge nor to effectively alter his own position through shady means.

Understandably, has the government fulfilled it's duties to uphold the law, then vigilante justice is NOT acceptable because the social contract remains.