It is morally permissible for a victim to use lethal force as a response to domestic abuse

An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind, and the results are even more chaotic when the trade isn't even. I contend that it is not morally permissible for one to deliberately use of lethal force as a response to repeat domestic violence. These are the reasons why: Contention 1: Under no circumstances should the right to life be taken from somebody. This very contention runs deep in the roots of America as we know it, and is in fact stated in the Declaration of Independence; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[75] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Life cannot be fairly taken from a human being. It is a right given to us at birth and that is present throughout our lives. Therefore, deliberately taking the life of a person is completely immoral. Under no circumstances can the life of a person be justly taken from somebody. In 1948, the United Nations wrote "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and in Article 1 that document states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." and Article 3 states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." No matter whether somebody is an abuser of a victim, they have the same human rights, and one of those rights is the right to life. A right can not be fairly taken away, no matter one's actions, and the right to life is unalienable and taking that right away is immoral. Contention 2: There are alternate solutions. It is moral for a victim to fight back against their attacker out of self-defense in order to escape from the threat at hand. However, the deliberate use of lethal force against the attacker is immoral. The legal definition of deliberate is "Willful; purposeful; determined after thoughtful evaluation of all relevant factors; dispassionate. To act with a particular intent, which is derived from a careful consideration of factors that influence the choice to be made." A victim having carefully considered the factors that influence the choice would realize they had other choices such as fighting back non-lethally out of self-defense, or going to the police. After a thoughtful evaluation of all relevant factors, it should become clear that murder is not a just solution to a problem. The topic states that the circumstances are under repeat domestic violence and therefore the victim would undoubtedly have an opportunity to escape from the violence by contacting police or social services. Contention 3: Death is an unjust consequence for abuse. There are still many states with the death penalty as the most extreme punishment for crimes. For most of these states, the only crime punishable by death is first degree murder. There is no state in which the traditional abuse case is considered punishable by death. A domestic abuser can certainly be tried in court if the victim informs outside sources about it, and oftentimes that abuser will receive his or her fair and just punishment. Death, however, is not a fair or just punishment for a case of domestic abuse. As I previously stated, there is no circumstance under which the life of a person can be morally taken away from them. However, should the death penalty remain in certain states, it is not and should not be used as a punishment for domestic abuse. Roman philosopher Marcus Cicero once stated that "Let the punishment be proportionate to the offense." Death is in no way proportionate to the offense of abuse, and should therefore never be a punishment for one. Furthermore, it is the duty of the court system and law enforcement to determine the punishment of a being for his or her crimes, not of the victim.