A victim's deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence. Affirm or Negate

Question

debate topic, I need ideas of all sorts...
-can be deep ideas
put down as much as possible, i need as many angles and perspectives as i can get, thx

MOST BEST RESULTS GETS 10 POINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The topic is meant to be very vague, in case you were wondering. This sets grounds for a fair debate. This topic has to be arguable by both sides: Affirmative and Negative.

Answer 1

I do not believe deliberate use of deadly force is justified in this case for a number of reasons.

1) Although the abuse victim may feel they had no other option at the time, because of the psychological climate of the abuse, leaving was always an option. So deadly force was not a last resort. The abuse victim can also not justify their action by saying they were entirelly dependant on the abuser, since leaving or killing the abuser would equally remove the abuser as a provider.
2) Deadly force is the last resort, and the most extreme case of violence. If the victim had the capacity to use deadly force, the victim must also have had the capacity to use a lower level of force sufficient to dissuade the abuser.
3) You specify this is a deliberate use of deadly force. The abuse victim insists the abuser must be dead by this act. There is no question the act is entirelly intentional. I refer to point 2. The intention is not to incapacitate the abuser, but to take the abuser's life.
4) The victim of abuse then gets to determine what amount of abuse is sufficient to justify death. Taking this example, the limit can be pushed further and further back. The victim is not allowed to take the law into their own hand.

So I would not say the victim was ENTIRELY justified. In extreme cases of psychological and physical abuse, however, abusers create situations in which their victims end up feeling they have no exit.
Were I a member of a jury and presented with such a case, I would certainly be tempted to consider mitigating circumstances. If the victims was otherwise a citizen with no previous history and little tendency to crime otherwise, I would be tempted to give a three year sentence, with two served in the community and possibility of parole for good behaviour.

Answer 2

I think the use of deadly force would depend heavily upon the circumstances. I would hope that the victim would not let things get to 'repeated' violence.

I do support and understand any person using whatever force necessary to defend themselves. Deadly force should be used normally only to defend against a deadly threat. What sticks in my mind about your question, though, is the idea of repeated violence. Why has it been allowed to be repeated? Why hasn't the victim removed themselves? Deadly force to defend against rape or stalking is be easier to understand than someone who stays in an abusive situation and then suddenly turns to deadly force.

Nothing justifies domestic violence, and everyone has the right to defend themselves. But deadly force, I'd have to know the circumstances.

Answer 3

Victims of controlling behavior have choices..they can stay and ride it out for a life time, losing their identity in the person who is controlling them, OR they can LEAVE, come hell or high water. People who tolerate physical abuse are waiting a death sentence, for violence always must be worse than the last time. Very few juries convict in cases where the abusee is acting in self defense, but then again, there are areas where IF a man is killed by a woman defending herself, the woman is considered a murderer. Very sad, but on the other hand, in the cold reality of daylight, she did have the choice to leave the attacker before the violence escalated, whether or not she knew she had the choice.

Answer 4

While I do not condone violence towards women, or men for that matter (A subject often forgotten), I do believe that a lot of women use "abuse" as an excuse to commit a crime and get away with it.

The only acceptable form of dealy force is in the case of imminent danger to ones own life. If you are not 100% convinced that your life is in danger if you do not take the life of the other person, what you are commiting is a crime, not self defence.

The line is sometimes very thin between self defence and homicide, and it is very difficult for most juries to decide one way or the other. A past history of violence will usually tend to swing the jury towards the womans side, versus the state.

In my opinion, women who are abused have many other means of getting out of their situation than deadly force. If they choose not to use one of these methods, for any reason, it is their own fault that they are still in the home.

I know most of you will come back with "But they're not able to leave, they're terrified of leaving, they are emotionally disturbed past the point of being able to leave...etc, there is always a way.

While I was training to be an EMT, I went on a call to a womans house where her husband had banged her up pretty good... The paramedic training me, as well as I both tried to convince her to file charges and move into the "Harbor House", a local shelter for battered women. She refused each time we tried.

Was she afraid for her life if she left? Perhaps, but the harbor house specializes in keeping men away from battered women, and she would have been safe.

I have no idea what happened to her, if she ever found the courage to leave or not, but I know she did not kill her husband.

I do not think that there is ever a need to take a human life other than in the most dire situations (He was about to kill her and had the knife in his hand, he was about to shoot her, he was about to ...you get the point). I think in situations where a woman kills the man who has abused her in the past can be both self defence and homicide, and it is really up to a jury to decide.

Answer 5

There are no affirmative answers to that question. Deadly force is only justified in cases of ones life, or other lives, being in imminent danger. The question actually needs to give a bit more information.

Answer 6

It could be legally argued that after prolonged abuse a Victim would become mentally fragile or impaired and not responsible for their actions.
They could use the defense of self defense if the abuse was occurring at the time of deadly force. Or they could justify the mental instability that comes from being terrorized for a long time.

Answer 7

Your question is overly simplified. Each case MUST be judged on the events and circumstances prior to the use of deliberate (premeditated ?)deadly force.

Answer 8

What is "just"?

Is justice balance? Is it peace? Is it closure?


Can the victim, having been traumatized so often, truly judge correctly what is just in the situation, or is their judgement skewed?

Who should judge what is just and what is not? If we have never experienced this violence for ourselves, can we truly judge correctly?

Answer 9

So many answers apply here
plotting to kill your repeated abuser is as sick as the abuser is .
You have the option to run away the option to report to police ,
the option to fight back but they will probably kill you at that point .
***The option to bury them in your back yard ***
And grow beautiful roses over them .

Answer 10

Yawn.

It depends on the situation.

You can't make a rule to fit all situations!

Ewwwwwwwww. 10 points. Wow!