It is an argument against vigilantism because there is at least some process in place to hold the official justice system accountable for its mistakes.

Obviously, I'm playing devils advocate a little, but I don't like this line of thinking.

It's kind of deifying the official. If the official process sucks, then it sucks. At least there is some process in place to hold the official justice system accountable only counts (in my eyes) if and when that works.

I think there's a stretch of an analogy to the current refugee crisis. On one hand we have this official set of ideals in laws and institutions. The principles are clear enough. Refugees need to be assessed fairly and settled in safe places.

In the other hand we have selfishness, bigotry and/or genuine practical objections mean that these do not produce a result. The reality is that taking refugees from some distant war on a different continent is politically a landline.

So, the official establishment ties itself in bureaucratic knots. Throttles and avoids the rock and the hard place.

Lets not forget that it's all people. Cops are people. Judges, Presidents, people.

Just because a system is not formalized doesn't means it works worse.

I'm struggling to discern your point here. I'm not arguing for the infallibility of official institutions, but how often do you imagine one mob can succeed in holding another mob accountable for its mistakes?

An official justice system does not have to allow for a process to be held accountable. Most ones seem to have something officially in theory, but we should remember, especially for the most disadvantaged of our society, in practice theory and practice aren't the same.

Also, a vigilante system can have a system to hold itself accountable as well.

A vigilante system is prima facie unaccountable, otherwise it's just another justice system

In which case we are working of significantly different definitions of justice/vigilante systems.

There is no definition of "vigilante system" that holds such systems accountable to society. If society were to hold such a system accountable it becomes codified into a true judicial system and is no longer "vigilante". These are inescapable definitions that are inherent to the very things they describe.

Then it sounds as if they are one in the same, like two sides of a coin being flipped throughout history.

Legal systems become corrupt and unaccountable, giving rise to vigilante systems. Those that survive long enough begin to improve as those involved seek to better the new systems. Eventually they reach the point of being the new legal system which slowly corrupts itself til it is beyond being held accountable, at which point it reverts back to a vigilante system that competes with new ones.

Perhaps the only issue is we should consider a different name from a vigilante systems that arise due to a corrupted legal system not meeting the needs of the populace vs the legal system itself that falls into a state where it is no longer held accountable.

I'm willing to bet you don't live in Perú.

Really what is it?