Alis Aff

I affirm. Definitions (Oxford American Dictionary) Vigilantism is 'self-appointed people who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority.' The implication is that criticisms of vigilante actions grounded in the past or the status quo don't sufficiently serve as reasons to negate because those groups’ actions wouldn't be consistent with the definition of vigilantism. In other words, once a group of 'vigilantes' take an action that's inconsistent with the law, they are criminals not vigilantes. Justified means 'to demonstrate or prove to be just or right.' To enforce means ‘to compel observance of or compliance with a law.’ The law is ‘the system of rules of a particular country recognized as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce the imposition of penalties.’ The implication is that problems like government enforcement of outdated or unenforceable laws don’t matter in relation to the resolution because law must be recognizable. 1. The value is justice because, for an action to be justified as per the definition, it must be consistent with justice. Justice, is defined as 'giving each their due.' All people are due a systematic issuance of rights via the law. This is true because the law, in order to be the law, must have equal application to all those under its jurisdiction; otherwise, crime couldn’t exist because there’d be an unlimited amount of ways in which to justify exceptions. Furthermore, a base notion of rights is necessary in order for humans to have any worth; a society lacking fundamental rights essentially leaves itself open to being a victim of mass atrocities like rape and genocide because said rights establish that those acts are intrinsically wrong and that no person is due that treatment. 2. Enforcement of the law is the central means of establishing justice. This is true for a couple reasons. First, the law functionally illustrates the difference between civil and criminal activity in a given society. Criminal activity, in order to be such, must be a deviation from the law, meaning that this break is inconsistent with justice. Second, the law definitively justifies redressing criminal acts, meaning that enforcement of the law is always consistent with justice. With this in mind, the necessary standard is minimizing ineffective law enforcement. The criterion is a weighing standard; whoever best minimizes ineffective law enforcement, at the end of the round, ought win. Ineffectiveness can be quantified by how strictly the law is followed. This also puts a burden on the negative to prove that lack of governmental AND vigilante law enforcement is ultimately less ineffective than the affirmative world. Failure to establish such means that you presume affirmative because all individuals have autonomy only restricted by the rights of others, meaning that all actions are justified unless shown to be in violation of a principle of justice. This means that absence any offense at the end of the round linking to a standard you must affirm since vigilantism is justified until proven unjust. Therefore, I have several arguments A. The absence of law enforcement leaves criminals unpunished. This is intuitively true inasmuch as law enforcement entails the punitive end of deviance from the law; subsequently, failure to enforce includes a failure to punish. This is problematic because negating creates a situation in which criminals can commit more crimes, which puts the

rights and lives of law-abiders in danger, ultimately contributing to an increasingly ineffective mode of law enforcement. Furthermore, failure to punish criminals leaves the law with zero deterrent effect on potential wrong-doers, meaning that the existence of the law in the negative world becomes fruitless. In the negative world, the law’s reduction to frivolity contributes to an absolute minimization of the effectiveness of law enforcement, meaning affirming outweighs on sheer risk of a link at worst. Additionally, lack of law enforcement blurs the criminal-victim distinction because criminals are essentially treated the same as victims in the negative world. Failure to establish the distinction between the two is the cornerstone of effective law enforcement inasmuch as the ability to punish those who are wrong-doers and let the rights of civilians flourish is founded on making sure that distinction exists; subsequently, negating directly contributes to ineffective law enforcement. Conversely, affirming establishes an alternative method of law enforcement when the primary method, the government, has failed, meaning that I outweigh in terms of probability because there’s a 100% chance of effective law enforcement in the affirmative world. B. Inaction engrains responsibility upon those who stand by as crimes are committed. This is true because ignoring responsibility can lead to egregious rights violations; i.e., not contributing money to an organization that will end a genocide when being made aware of the impact of the donation necessarily means that the agent of action, or in this case inaction, is condoning the continuity of the genocide. This is further warranted by the fact that humans, and more specifically the agent of action in the resolution, have cognitive thinking abilities and are able to understand the consequence of inaction, thus making the agent of action necessarily responsible for their choice. In terms of the resolution, vigilantism at the very least can serve as a means of citizens acting responsibly when the government has failed to enforce the law. Failure to act in light of criminal acts, then, leaves the hands of citizens standing idly by bloody; the negative world, via a lack of responsible action, contributes to an ineffective means of law enforcement that leaves people open to rights violations. Furthermore, negating can make civilians criminals by tolerating criminal acts; this is true in the status quo (i.e. harboring a fugitive inadvertently). This not only violates the standard, but has direct implications linking back to the value. Conversely, affirming ensures that the law is properly enforced via vigilantism, meaning I outweigh on magnitude because toleration of crimes can exacerbate the problem of criminal behavior to an enormous degree. C. Vigilantism acts as a check against governments that violate their own laws, and subsequently, the rights of their constituency. Typically, governments do not contain mechanisms that allow for citizen-establishment of law enforcement because it would be counter-intuitive to the idea of governance; however, this ideology leaves citizens without the ability to redress what their government does. This unchecked authority the

government wields can be used to abuse the citizenry, and without an alternative agent of enforcement, people would have to simply withstand the abuse; however, in the affirmative world, vigilantism can be used to ensure that the government remains loyal to the law, meaning that affirming necessarily ensures effective law enforcement. Conversely, negating leaves the door open for the government to commit whatever rights violations it chooses to, meaning negating necessarily violates the standard. D. Extra-Judicial law enforcement is necessary to ensure justice. This is true inasmuch as it can’t be 100% guaranteed that the formal government can be everywhere at once; as a result, the potential for crime in the negative world is increased. Alternatively, vigilantism can be used to fill in the small gaps in the government’s jurisdiction, meaning affirming links back to an effective enforcement of the law. This benefit is unique to the affirmative because vigilantism is being used to solve back for the inadequacies of the government. Furthermore, vigilantism can be an even more effective means of ensure the law is always enforced. Richard Neely writes: “Introduction,” Take Back Your Neighborhood,” 1990, p. 23-24

What distinguishes citizens from the regular police are two attributes that make citizens more effective : First citizens have the manpower to patrol in sufficient force so that criminals believe there is a high likelihood of apprehension. Second, citizens can be active rather than reactive because they are not burdened with doing the mountains of paperwork that dominate the working day of uniformed officers.” The implication is that vigilantism essentially saturates society with law enforcement, meaning affirming outweighs in terms of magnitude. Additionally, vigilantism can be swifter than formal enforcement of the law, failed or not, meaning that affirming outweighs in terms of timeframe because criminal acts can be redressed more quickly, making law enforcement more effective. , however,

than the regular police

, when properly organized,

regulating traffic, responding to domestic violence calls, investigating crimes after the fact or

E. Vigilantism socially reaffirms the importance of adhering to the law. Richard Neely 2: The very act of organizing to protect from crime has the effect of strengthening values concerning appropriate standards of public behavior. a community police force allows a clear choice between "them" and "us." A community that goes to great lengths to exclude or, at least, control criminals and those likely to become criminals makes it obvious what traits are utterly unacceptable ” The implication is, via social disrespect of criminals through vigilantism, the ability to effectively enforce the law is intrinsically increased because a clear delineation between good and bad is made, which the government is failing to do as per the resolution. a neighborhood

traditional

Because

volunteer patrols have a place for adolescents as young as fifteen (if properly supervised),

adolescents to make

racially and ethnically mixed blue-collar

in a person-voluntary able-bodied unemployment, panhandling, drug dealing, drug abuse, prostitution, brawling, larceny

and violence of any sort.