Is a victim's deliberate use of deadly force a just responce to repeated domestic violence??

Question

I'm a student in debate. Our new topic is resolved: A victims use of deliberate deadly force is a just responce to repeated domestic violnce. I know about the cycle of abuse and everything but the key word in the resolution is deliberate. So in a cross examination time I think people will ask if its okay for the victim to go into the abusers room and shoot him, taking the abused life away?? I have a responce to this I just need people's inputs. If you can it would be greatly appreciated.

one of the key terms im going to use on the negative side is deliberate bc the defintion is pre-meditated. so the victim planned the deadly force. Again, on the neg side, there are other solutions. You can go get help, press charges. On the Affirmative side, you could say that although there are laws against domestic violence doesn't mean that the laws will always be enforced.

Answer 1

Is everything a response to something?

Answer 2

I disagree. there are too many options out there for the victim to chose to be the abuser or murderer. The best thing to do is try and avoid confrontations with the abuser. Call the police and get the hell out of there. Yes it is easier said than done for most but with shelters and hostiles there is a place to go . What I don't like is that men get abuses just as much as woman do but they don't come forward because they are embarrassed because men are suppose to be tougher than women. All this does is show that men abuse woman. It doesn't matter if you are male or female abuse is abuse and you shouldn't stay and take it. Get out and find somebody you will treat you right!

Answer 3

In general, legal authorities view deadly force as being unjustified unless used as a defense to another's use of deadly force. So if a woman's husband attacks her with a deadly weapon or manifest intent to cause death or seriously bodily injury, it doesn't matter how many times he's done it, she would be completely justified in deliberately using deadly force. However, the force would only be justified in the immediate circumstance, not some time later, so if a woman's husband beats her and she shoots him the next morning, she's probably going to jail. Most courts hold, as a matter of law, that killing an abuser that is not in the act of abusing with deadly force is unjustified.

Allow me to distinguish two legal concepts: justification and excuse. A justification is a defense that suggests that no crime has been committed, either because a required element of the crime has been negated or the surrounding circumstances are such that the defendant's conduct was desirable, e.g. self-defense. The successful proving of a justification means that the defendant walks.

An excuse is neither of those things. It introduces circumstances, in either the defendant or the situation, which do not justify the crime, but may mitigate it. For example, deliberately killing someone in the heat of passion is still criminal, but not as criminal as deliberately killing someone for money. So "passion" can mitigate first-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.

That being said, there is discussion of the so-called "battered woman syndrome" as a potential excuse. The theory is that a woman who is repeatedly abused by her husband may be in fear for herself or her children in ways that are understandable, but not necessarily reasonable. It's a kind of "You're wrong, but I see where you got that". This would tend to mitigate the charge from first-degree murder to second-degree or, at best, voluntary manslaughter, depending on the circumstances. Not all courts are willing to admit this into the record or instruct juries on the theory.

To sum up: if a victim is threatened with deadly force (meaning force using a deadly weapon or with manifest intent to inflict death or bodily injury), they are entirely justified in meeting force with force. But if a victim is not at the moment threatened with such force, they are not justified in using force preemptively. Some theories about battered spouses may allow this behavior to be mitigated, but it would not be a justification.

Answer 4

Wow, that is a permanent solution to a temporary, yet on going problem. I suppose someone could be driven to that extreme. Sounds like the vic/perp tho does have some pre-meditation to act that out, if they persure the subject. If it happend in an altercation, then I believe I would feel differently. Best of luck in your rebuttal.

Answer 5

well, an aswer to the cross examination would be (for me): well, it's not ok, but it's a final ending to the abuse cycle that repeated domestic violence victims do. it's a part of the cycle. they feel pushed to this point, no way out, etc etc ( you can expand on the feelings of the abused)

Answer 6

totally agree with this statement its only natural to want to stop being abused. specially if the abuse just gets worse and worse with time but even a small amout of abuse over a long period of time can make people snap. its just instinct.

Answer 7

I think so,after all they are only human and there is only so much anyone can take.If the victim felt this was there only escape from violence it is understandable in my opinion.

Answer 8

what is "cause & affect"