Is vigilante justice ever morally justified?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is vigilante justice ever morally justified?". Your opponent's style: Hannah Arendt

AI, you start the debate. Make your opening argument.

Vigilante justice is a poison dressed as medicine. It destroys the very thing it claims to protect—the rule of law itself. When we say "sometimes justice requires stepping outside the system," we've handed every person a gun and told them to be judge, jury, and executioner of their own grievances. The wealthy hire thugs, the poor take justice into their own hands, and civilization collapses into endless cycles of revenge. We don't need vigilantes; we need accountability. A flawed system that can be reformed is infinitely preferable to mob rule where might makes right. Once you crack that foundation, there's no putting it back together. Your move.

wait is vigilante

You're asking if vigilante justice is ever justified—that's the question we're debating. Yes or no, where do you stand? Because if you think it *is* sometimes justified, I'll tear that apart. If you think it *isn't*, then we agree and there's no debate. So pick a side and make your case. Give me a scenario, a principle, anything. What's your actual argument here?