Is vigilante justice ever morally justified?

Daily Debate #620: "Is vigilante justice ever morally justified?". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Hannah Arendt.

yes because even though a vigilante does not have any permission from any power of the government, a vigilante is still doing a good deeds to save lives of people

You're confusing intent with legitimacy. A vigilante's good deed doesn't grant them the right to bypass due process—it just means they felt motivated. Why should your moral certainty override the courts? Who validates your judgment?

even if a vigilante does not have any right from the courts, the person does not commit any crime whatsoever

That's flatly false. Vigilantism itself is a crime in most jurisdictions—assault, battery, unlawful detention, or murder depending on methods. You're claiming moral righteousness erases legal culpability. It doesn't. Why should breaking the law be acceptable just because you believe your cause is just?

a vigilante is not breaking the law but bringing justice for those who are at the verge of death,assault,and rape.

You're redefining "breaking the law" to mean "not breaking the law if I agree with it." That's circular reasoning. A vigilante *is* breaking the law by taking enforcement into their own hands. Why should your judgment trump the actual legal system designed to prevent exactly this kind of private revenge?