QuickTimeª and a

TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

DURHAM ACADEMY KZ VIGILANTISM AFFIRMATIVE PAGE 1 OF 8

I affirm the resolution Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

Vigilante is defined by Merrism Webster’s Dictionary as a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress
and punish crime.1

I offer the following observation:

The use of the term “the law” refers to the collective body of laws and is distinct from the singular phrase “a law.”
Government failure to enforce “the law” implies not an isolated failure, but a systemic breakdown of legal order.

The resolution prescribes a value of justice, defined as giving each their due. The value criterion is the
utilitarianism of rights, defined by Walter Sinnot-Armstrong of Dartmouth as “maximiz[ing] respect for, or
minimiz[ing] violations of…moral rights.” The premise behind the utilitarianism of rights is that human rights are
the highest moral good and are what make just goals worth pursuing. Without human rights, moral goods are
meaningless. Daniel Callahan of Yale explains:

There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to

inflict on another for the sake of survival, no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to
suppress. It is easy, of course, to recognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators never talk
about their aggressions, but only about the need to defend the fatherland, to save it from destruction at the hands of its
my point goes deeper than that. It is directed even at a legitimate concern for
enemies. But
survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would
ignore, suppress, or destroy other fundamental human rights and values.
The potential tyranny of survival as a value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of
wiping out all other values. Survival can become an obsession and a
disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at
nothing. We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If, both biologically and psychologically, the need for survival
is basic to man, and if survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements, and if no other rights make much sense
without the premise of a right to life- then how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival, without in the
process, destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival? To put it more strongly, if
the
price of survival is human degradation, then there is no moral reason why
an effort should be made to ensure that survival. It would be the Pyrrhic
victory to end all Pyrrhic victories.

It is important to note that law and government are premised on the communal desire of members of society to
protect their rights. John Locke articulates:

If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and
possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he
give up his empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that
in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of [freedom] is very
though
uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much
as he, every man his equal, and the greater part to strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in
this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition which, however free, is full of fears
willing to join in society with
and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is
others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their
1
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 22 April 2009 <http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/vigilante>
 QuickTimeª and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.

DURHAM ACADEMY KZ VIGILANTISM AFFIRMATIVE PAGE 2 OF 8

lives, liberties, and estates.

Two impacts follow:

A) Law is derived from the collective thinking and desires of the community, and thus will represent
community values.
B) Law is premised on the communal protection of rights, and so a lack of enforcement necessarily entails a
loss of protection of rights.

Contention 1: Vigilantism provides a check against the state abuse of power. One form of breakdown of the
rule of law is a situation in which the state retains the power of coercion, but chooses to use it to abuse its citizens
instead of enforcing the law. Thus, the complete concentration of power in the state is overly dangerous. There is
no guarantee that the state will obey its own laws and won’t abuse its citizens, as was the case during Argentina’s
“Dirty War,” during which the government violated its own laws by kidnapping and often killing citizens it saw as
a threat to its power. Without vigilantism, the government is free to ignore the law and infringe upon rights
without any possibility of consequences. Therefore, vigilantism is a structural necessity, as it provides the only tool
to stop the complete degradation of rights by the state. Even if vigilantism is not always used, it must be termed
justified because it allows for the populace to have some way of stopping the state when the state oversteps its
bounds and infringes upon rights. Thus, vigilantism protects human rights by providing a means to stop the state
from infringing upon them.

Contention 2: Vigilantism serves as a deterrent to criminal action

Subpoint A: This deterrent prevents the erosion of rights. When vigilantism is prohibited, criminals know that,
if they can escape the punishment of the state, then they will get away with their crime. Thus, in places where the
state holds very little de facto power, there is no disincentive to commit a crime. Inherently, this breakdown of
legal order and proliferation of crime entails an erosion of the rights protected under law. Thus, in such a situation,
vigilantism becomes necessary to uphold these rights. Consider the case of the frontier American West. Jon
Rosenbaum and Peter Sederberg of Wellesley write:
pioneer vigilantes took the law into their own hands for the
Fundamentally, the
purpose of establishing order and stability in newly settled areas. In the older
settled areas the prime values of person and property were dominant and secure, but the move to the frontier meant that it was
necessary to start all over. Upright and ambitious frontiersmen wished to reestablish the values of a property holder’s society.
The presence of outlaws and marginal types, often in a context of weak and
ineffectual law enforcement, created the specter and, frequently, the fact of social chaos. A
vigilante roundup of ne’er-do-wells and outlaws, followed by their flogging, expulsion, or killing,
not only solved the problem of disorder, but also had crucial symbolic value
as well. Vigilante action was a clear warning to disorderly inhabitants that
the newness of settlement would provide no opportunity to erode the
established framework of civilization. Vigilantism was a violent sanctification of
the deeply cherished values of life and property.
 QuickTimeª and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.

DURHAM ACADEMY KZ VIGILANTISM AFFIRMATIVE PAGE 3 OF 8

Thus, vigilantism in the context of a nascent or ineffective government prevents the erosion of rights on a societal
scale.

It is also important to note the inherent constraints on vigilante action. Vigilantes seek to deter crime and violence
because they impose implicit costs on society by breaking down the rights of each citizen. By the same token,
vigilantes do not seek a reign of violent vigilante terror as this would be no better. Vigilantes may resort to
violence, but only insofar as it will increase societal welfare and safety. Kelly Hine writes in the American
University Law Review:

people behave in what they perceive to be

One of the basic assumptions of economics is that
their own best interest. Individuals are thought to act as “rational
maximizers” of their ends in life. The proposition that people will not act unless the
benefit of the action outweighs its cost (i.e., unless to act would increase their personal satisfaction)
naturally flows from this assumption.

Thus, as rational actors, vigilantes will only resort to violence when its inherent costs are outweighed by the costs
of the crime they are dealing with. This rationality of action ensures that vigilantes will not resort to continual and
excessive violence but instead will do only what is necessary to ensure security and uphold rights.

Subpoint B: This affirmative deterrent is superior to the negative alternative. The deterrent effect of
vigilantism is important because it prevents crimes from happening in the first place, instead of simply rectifying
past abuses. Because it is inherent to the resolution that the governmental legal system has failed, eliminating any
deterrent effect it might have, the negative cannot provide this benefit that is so vital to upholding the rights of
members of society.

Contention 3: Vigilantism respects the rights of the victim. Punishment is necessary to prevent the criminal
from holding himself above the law. It restores the equilibrium between the victim and the criminal, thereby
respecting the victim’s rights. Jeffrey Reiman of American University explains:
The point of retributive punishment is to impress upon him [the criminal] his
equality with his victim. I mean to be understood quite literally. If the sentence is just and the criminal rational,
then the punishment should normally force upon him recognition of his equality with his victim,
recognition of their shared vulnerability to suffering and their shared
desire to avoid it, as well as recognition of the fact that he counts for no
more than his victim in the eyes of their fellows. Doing back to you [the criminal] what you
[he] did "annuls" your [his] violation by reasserting that the other has the same right toward [the criminal] you that you [he]
asserts toward [the victim.] him. Punishment according to the lex talionis cannot heal the injury that the other has
suffered at your hands, rather it rectifies the indignity [the victim] has suffered, by
restoring him to equality with [the criminal].

In restoring equality, punishment acknowledges the inherent dignity of the victim, the dignity that the concept of
human rights is based on. The acknowledgement of this dignity is key to preserving rights, as it forms the basis for
rights in the first place. Thus, vigilantism respects rights by acknowledging the victim’s inherent dignity and
restoring victims and criminals to equilibrium.
In conclusion, vigilantism serves as a check on the infringement of rights by the state, acknowledges the inherent
dignity of each individual, and deters future crime. Vigilantism upholds rights in a multitude of ways that the
 QuickTimeª and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.

DURHAM ACADEMY KZ VIGILANTISM AFFIRMATIVE PAGE 4 OF 8

negative simply cannot match. For these reasons, I urge you to affirm the resolution.
 QuickTimeª and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.

DURHAM ACADEMY KZ VIGILANTISM AFFIRMATIVE PAGE 5 OF 8

Crossfire Questions
1. Do the same problems apply to criminals?

2. Do vigilantes at least attempt to uphold some sort of morality?

3. Do people act in their own interest?

4. Is violence inherently costly?

5. Why would people want excessive vigilante violence?

6. Will criminals respect others’ rights?

7. What rights are the most important?

 QuickTimeª and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.

DURHAM ACADEMY KZ VIGILANTISM AFFIRMATIVE PAGE 6 OF 8

Extensions
Vigilantism removes the stigma of the legal system- Kelly Hine, American University Law Review, 1998
(Vigilantism Revisited)
Vigilantes are not salaried, they do not require extensive training, and they generally keep capital expenditures to a minimum. As
members of the community victimized by crime, vigilantes also enjoy the benefits of increased familiarity with their victimizers. This
Furthermore, vigilante law
familiarity should make apprehension easier, thereby lowering the cost of enforcement.
enforcement does not subject the criminal to the continuing level of stigma
associated with a public criminal record.

Without law enforcement crime proliferates- Kelly Hine, American University Law Review, 1998
(Vigilantism Revisited)
When an established governmental system for enforcing the criminal law
does not exist, the only means available to protect [the] “repository of the
public well being” is private action. Classical vigilantism on the American frontier epitomizes such
private action. In the absence of an established law enforcement system, the social wealth explanation for vigilantism is straight
Under these circumstances, nothing but the threat of harm from the
forward.
victim provides incentives for individuals to forego crime. If the potential
criminal is significantly stronger or more brutal than the potential victim,
deterrence is ineffective. Under the model discussed in this Article, the probability that the
criminal will incur a criminal sanction is now zero. Therefore, no matter
how high the actual sanction, the expected cost of criminal activity is also
zero. Individuals will commit any act providing a net personal benefit. But
once the expected costs of crime to “honest” (i.e., law abiding) society begin to
outweigh the costs associated with vigilantism, victims gain an incentive to
band together and administer self-help criminal justice. This “vigilante
justice” fills the law enforcement void.

The West was not particularly violent- John Garraty, Columbia University, 2008
(The American Nation)
But several decades ago historians challenged the notion that the western frontier
was exceptionally violent. Robert Dykstra observed that most of the frontier was
devoted to agriculture, and that such communities were peaceable. John Unruh
Jr. and John Reid were struck by how few crimes occurred during the difficult, long
months of the overland trail. Stuart N. Udall, former secretary of the interior, reflected the opinions of a
panel at the Western History Association that rejected “the current contention
that gun violence was a ‘principal’ factor in the history of the American
west.
 QuickTimeª and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.

DURHAM ACADEMY KZ VIGILANTISM AFFIRMATIVE PAGE 7 OF 8

AT: Vigilantism Breaks Down Government

Vigilantes seek to preserve values and institutions- Jon Rosenbaum and Peter Sederberg, Wellesley, 1974
(Comparative Politics: Vigilantism: An Analysis of Establishment Violence)
From this perspective, the social context of vigilantism consists of certain groups
that believe they possess a vested interest in the preservation of the
current distribution of values. In short, they compose an establishment,
though not necessarily an elite. More- over, they usually regard the formal political
order so constituted as to protect this distribution. Government, then, is
viewed as the superstructural manifestation of the dominant value system
of the social base (with apologies to Marx). The value expectations of these groups are relatively stable, and the
state is generally seen as an important contributor to their value
capabilities.

Vigilantes seek to preserve the status quo- Jon Rosenbaum and Peter Sederberg, Wellesley, 1974
(Comparative Politics: Vigilantism: An Analysis of Establishment Violence)
The examples of crime and social group control vigilantism are cited simply for illustration; undoubtedly, they could be
For the most part, [vigilantism] concern[s] the use of
multiplied many times.
violence by established groups to preserve the status quo at times when
the formal system of rule enforcement is viewed as ineffective or
irrelevant.

Vigilantism sets up a superior law in the future- William Culberson, University of La Verne, 1990
(Vigilantism: Political History of Private Power in America)
Vigilantism, like conflict and politics, is a constant social struggle to contain victimization. Vigilantism is a part of politics
because it is a desire to maintain an established social and legal tradition and at the same time a desire to bring about a
prelegal condition for a new order. Overall, vigilantism incorporates an element often construed as setting it apart from politics
—extralegalism. Vigilantism is a breaking of the existing law to serve the future
for the law; it is a disintegration of a lawless, victimizing, inegalitarian
social set for its reintegration to include more or broader social values. It can
be the worst of man, but in many instances it has been the best of man, acting to create or enforce
dominant social values and norms so as to make them into law. Vigilantism is of
politics and is not of politics: it is of politics because it demands the protection, the dispensing, and consideration of political
resources for a particular social task; it is not of politics because it often circumvents, ignores, or is disobedient to existing social
structures and mechanisms of politics.

AT: Juarez Shows Vigilantism is Bad

Government action caused the violence in Juarez- Christian Science Monitor, February 23, 2009
The drug cartels increased their violent actions after Mexican president Felipe Calderón started a crackdown on
drug trafficking. Essentially, enforcement of the law caused the violent, not vigilantism.

AT: The Law Is The Only Way to Achieve Justice

 QuickTimeª and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.

DURHAM ACADEMY KZ VIGILANTISM AFFIRMATIVE PAGE 8 OF 8

Innocent executions show the legal system fails sometimes- Houston Chronicle, July 24, 2006
New evidence indicates that Ruben Cantu, executed for murder in 1993, was actually innocent, illustrating the
failing of the legal system.