January/February LD Topic: Deadly force as a deliberate response to cases of domestic violence

My opponent states that I have overgeneralized this debate. That is not the case. I am focusing, because of the allotted time of an LD debate, on the majority of cases. My opponent's evidence is also misleading, stating, "Contrary to previous beliefs, arrests do not appear to be gender biased…" This simply means that ARRESTS were equally made, not that domestic violence occurs on the same gender level. However, Katherine Greene, Jane Doe's public affairs director, said cases of battered men are too rare to warrant a massive change in the domestic violence agenda. "Sometimes it snows in Florida," she said, quoting a Jane Doe board member's comment on male victims at an annual board meeting. "We can't ignore it, but we don't make public policy around it." (Farah Stockman, "A Search for Equality, Domestic Abuse Groups Dispute Status Claims Made by Men," Boston Globe, October 28, 2002) "In heterosexual couples, it is estimated that the man is the abuser in 95% of cases." (Linda M. Peterman and Charlotte G. Dixon, "Domestic Violence Between Same Sex Partners: Implications for Counseling," Journal of Counseling and Development, Winter 2003.) On another note, same-sex abuse is lacking awareness for several reasons. First, abused homosexuals are apt to keep quiet and refrain from reporting intimate violence. Second, gay men and lesbians exhibit the same types of partner loyalty, financial dependence, fear, and other emotional connectedness that keeps abused heterosexual spouses in their troubled relationships. I will still defend every victims action of deadly force as being morally permissible, regardless of gender, color, ethnicity. I will now answer some of my opponent's crossex questions due to character constraints: 1)What effect would witnessing a murder have on a childs psychological well-being? Modern research has shown that children who are indirect victims of domestic abuse, by witnessing the physical or sexual abuse of their parent or siblings (which might be called "witness of abuse syndrome") also suffer from the same psychological effects as direct victims. (Criminal Law Brief; Spring 2009; 4 Crim. L. Brief 76) 2)If the victim is capable of killing their attacker, why are they incapable of causing bodily harm without deadly force? Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force in which a person uses, causing or that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm. Bodily harm is included. 3) Can you state your source for your definitions of deontology and consequentialism? (1) Ethical theories that maintain that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action depends on its intrinsic qualities, and not (as in consequentialism) on the nature of its consequences. I am focusing on intentions. (2)The doctrine that actions should be solely judged right or wrong on the basis of their consequences and whether or not they produce a net benefit. (http://plato.stanford.edu...) Therefore, that which is moral, both in principle and in consequence, upholds justice. I will now move onto the definitions debate. My opponent defined deadly without regarding the entire phrase: deadly force. There is a difference. Deadly force includes both death and serious bodily harm. Deadly force does not always constitute death. Additionally, the intention of the victim is to prevent abuse from happening, not to kill the abuser, therefore a victim's intentions are founded in self-defense. Next, I will discuss the V/VC clash. My opponent and I agree with Justice as being a value we wish to uphold. Therefore, the judges must look at the criterion that best upholds Justice. Justice is defined as being based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. In turn, actions that are moral uphold justice. The social contract is not as strong as a criterion for this debate. Under social contract theory, if the state fails in its obligation to protect citizens, the government is considered dissolved and the people are entitled to provide for their own protection. One philosopher concludes that where the state fails to protect its citizens, protecting oneself is not considered civil disobedience or vigilantism. One may extrapolate this premise to conclude that vigilantism is morally justified by the state's failure to uphold its end of the compact. (The American University Journal of Gender & the Law; 1995) My opponents first contention state: Domestic violence victims do not have to resort to deadly force. She writes that "Shelters, hotlines, and law enforcement are all reliable sources of aid." Subpoint A: Shelters. The inability of impoverished a woman to meet her monthly bills by herself often leaves the woman with no choice for herself and her children but to either go to a homeless shelter or return to her abuser. Shelters for victims of domestic violence are only meant to be short term and they are not designed to provide long-term housing. Many abused women who seek temporary refuge in emergency shelters, ultimately return to their spouses, in large part because they have no other source of income. (Nancy; Law Professor at Santa Clara University School of Law;) Subpoint B: Hotlines. Hotlines are not fix-all alternatives. Unless the opposition can provide sources of how effective they are I don't see what impact they have. Subpoint C: Law Enforcement Nancy; Law Professor at Santa Clara University School of Law states: "Through experience, the victim learns that when she attempts to defend herself -- by reaching out to others or trying to leave - that she will be the victim of more severe violence. Most battered women have sought help unsuccessfully from police or other protective agencies. One study of women in Philadelphia, who died at the hands of their abusive spouses, estimated that 64% of the women were known by the police to have been physically abused before their deaths. My oppoent's second contention is: Disproportionate Rights Violation My opponent states that death is not the most viable punishment for domestic violence, however, I am not advocating for death to be the punishment. Killing in self-defense is permitted when there is "reasonable ground" to believe that great bodily injury or death is threatened and there is "imminent danger" of the threat "being accomplished." Dr. Walker explained how the three stage pattern of domestic abuse allows the battered women to anticipate when physical violence is imminent. Dr. Walker also described the psychological reactions of hypervigilance and the learned helplessness manifested by battered women, which helps to explain why battered women may be objectively justified in killing their passive abusers. When the term battered child syndrome is used to describe the permanent psychological effects of domestic violence, the effects are virtually identical to the psychological impact characteristically associated with Battered Woman Syndrome Additionally, Dallas County District Attorney Cindy Dyer said, "One of the worst cases of battered women syndrome I've ever seen was a man battered by another man." "Battered woman's syndrome" (BWS), is now generally classed as a form of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a psychiatric condition first outlined in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and occasioned by exposure to events "outside the range of usual human experience." Finally, my opponent's third contention is that: Killing abusers undermines value of life. There are a few problems with this. Deadly force does not always constitute death. The intention of an abuse victim is to stop the abuse, not to kill the abuser. The victim will no longer be abused, and in turn, money will be saved (AFF-1). When a victim has to resort to deadly force there is good reason for it and it is morally permissible for them to do so. I urge a PRO vote.