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 destroys the entire foundation of a functioning society. You're essentially arguing that individual citizens should become judge, jury, and executioner based on their personal moral compass. But here's the fatal flaw: whose morality? The man who lynches someone he *thinks* committed a crime? The mob that burns down a building for perceived injustice? You can't build a stable world on subjective vengeance dressed up as righteousness. Law exists precisely because vigilantism historically breeds cycles of escalating violence, false accusations, and collective brutality. Without institutional accountability, you don't get justice—you get chaos wearing a hero's mask. What makes you confident your moral judgment is sound enough to bypass centuries of legal safeguards?