As Mahatma Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” It is because I agree with the idea that an individual cannot create justice with his own hands, by murdering other individual, I stand in negation of the resolved that “It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence”

NEGATIVE

Domestic violence is definitely a growing problem that concerns both victims and society in general. Yet, using deadly force against domestic violence is not going to solve the problem. Once again answering extreme aggression with a murder is not an option here and should not be permissible.

In order to provide clarity I will provide definitions for the following terms.

Definitions: (legal dictionary.com)

Domestic violence

"Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality."

deliberate

purposeful; determined after thoughtful evaluation of all relevant factors. To act with a particular intent, which is derived from a careful consideration of factors that influence the choice to be made.

Murder

the killing of another human. characterized by deliberation or premeditation (first-degree murder)

or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (),  and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Self-protection

the act or an instance of protecting or defending oneself

Contentions:

1. The deliberate response to the repeated domestic violence is not a self-protection. It’s a murder.

2. we look closer at the resolution we will see, that, first of all, the answer to the abuser, proposed by the resolution is a DELIBERATE response. It means that, although, the victim did experience the abuse, the abuser did not kill the victim. Therefore, the victim had an option of seeking help, rather than deliberately planning a murder.

3. At the domestic violemce.org it is said that “If you are being abused, REMEMBER

1. You are not alone

2. It is not your fault (therefore you do not need to solve this question on your own)

3. Help is available!!!!

Moreover, most centers provide 24-hour available shelter for the victims (http://www.safehavenshelter.org/).

But instead of allowing officials to solve this question and provide the protection that the victim needs, the affirmative side says that the victim should instead consider a deliberate plan for an exercise of a deadly force, or simply intentional murder. Suggesting that when abused, a disproportional response of a murder is a lot better that receiving help from those who can help and solve the problem in a lot less harmful way.

And that leads to my second contention:

2. Contention 2, The response to the crime, even in self-protection must be proportional and fair, especially since there are more effective ways to solve the problem of domestic violence.

In According to the national center for victims of crime.org:

Hundreds of shelters and domestic violence programs throughout the United States provide emotional, financial, vocational, and legal assistance and support to domestic violence survivors and their children.

Their goal is to (quote) :

lead the society to prevent, protect and prevail over domestic violence through advocacy and social change.

And their intention is right. They also provide the statistics that people who witnessed domestic violence in their childhood are two times more likely to abuse their own family or to show signs of offensive and violent behavior. With that said, if we deal with the problem in a logical, safe and reasonable way, meaning asking for help from officials, we can eventually lower the probability of domestic violence. However, imagine the outcome that the affirmative side suggests.

If the victim exercise the deadly force on the abuser, then the victim’s comfort and safety is ensured with a cost of a WHOLE HUMAN LIFE and most likely the trauma for the victim.

Even worse outcome is if the victim has kids. Then we have a bunch of kids staring at their mommy, with a knife in her hand and a bloody shirt. Or even worse, the kids see their father lying in the puddle of his own blood.

And why you may ask that happened. Because their mother decided to take the justice in her own hands, instead of asking for help.

2. Contention 3: the individual has no right to take another’s life. Plus with the proposed resolution any victim of an abuse that happened more than one time, can use deadly force against the abuser, even if there is no more threat to the life of the victim, or the victim could even fake the evidences of “domestic violence”

1. RIGHT TO LIFE IS AN INALIENABLE(инэлиэнабле) AND UNIVERSAL RIGHT Hugo Bedau, NQA, DEATH IS DIFFERENT, 1987, pp. 11-12. In addition to being natural, the right to life was traditionally understood to be universal and inalienable. A universal right is a right that everyone has, regardless of where one is born or lives and regardless of sex or race. An inalienable right is a right that the possessor cannot transfer, sell, or give away to another person. Thus, killing one person is as much a violation of the right to life as killing any other person, and we cannot somehow give to others the right to kill.

(second)

Just because one considered a victim, he doesn’t somehow get a right to take other life, especially when the victim can find a way out, without the violence. Because if she deliberately though out the plan for a deadly force response to the repeated abuse, then she definitely is not planning to live with that person anymore. Then why not go to the place, where you will get help you need. And start a new life.

 

Questions:

1)Why do you think that a deadly force is better, than asking for help, from special agencies that provide shelter and law protection from the abusers?

• So you are saying that the victim’s life is more valuable that the life of the abuser?

(yes, but with such a logic, handicapped people’s lifes are less valuable than yours or mine, just because they are less potential benefit to the society)

• Suppose a victim in case of the death of her husband gets his fortune. What if the “victim” kills her husband, harms her own body, and then calls the police, in tears she claims that she was a victim of a repeated domestic violence and now her husband tried to go even further, so she was left with no other choice, than to kill him? The “victim” gets the fortune, the court cannot prove the guiltiness of her. How do you think is it going to be possible to know what victims are real and what are fake?

(but most of the victims prefer not to talk about the abuse outside of the family, so it would be impossible to tell, if the abuse took place or not. What is your solution then?)

F..K YOU, IT WORKS

1. RESTRAINING ORDERS PREVENT ATTACKS, EVEN IF THEY AREN’T PERFECT

Robert Salonga and Malaika Fraley, Staff Writers, September 29, 2008, “Restraining orders don't always guarantee safety,” Monterey County Herald,www.montereyherald.com/state/ci_10588249, ACC. 12-11-11

Law enforcement and advocates for victims of domestic violence maintain the court orders are effective as long as victims know they need to do more than just have the document in hand. "It's not a force field," Antioch police Lt. Leonard Orman said. "But it is a tool for us and the public. Instead of telling people to leave, (with an order) we can arrest somebody."