It is morally permissible for victims to use lethal force in response to repeated domestic violence

Thank you Zaradi for starting this debate. As Zaradi and I have defined key terms in the comments section I will begin my case presentation. "If the numbers we see in domestic violence were applied to terrorism or gang violence, the entire country would be up in arms, and it would be the lead story on the news every night." -Rep. Mark Green, WI. Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use lethal force in response to repeated domestic violence As the affirmative I will be arguing in favor of the resolution. Value: Morality Value Criterion- Protecting Human Rights One might reasonably ask, how can it be said that the use of lethal force is in any way promoting human right, or just? Is a person not being killed in the situation if it is used. Domestic Violence however is in its own way, a form of lethal force, as all too often it leads to the death of the victim. Websdale writes, "EVERY YEAR in the United States, 1,000 TO 1,600 women DIE at the hands of their male partners, often AFTER A LONG ESCALATING PATTERN OF BATTERING... A significant number of the 6,000 or so WOMEN who COMMIT SUICIDE in the United States each year LIKELY do so BECAUSE OF BEING ABUSED by an intimate male partner."[1] The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence also writes, "ALMOST ONE-THIRD OF FEMALE HOMICIDE VICTIMS THAT ARE REPORTED IN POLICE RECORDS ARE KILLED BY AN INTIMATE PARTNER. IN 70-80% OF ALL INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDES, NO MATTER WHICH PARTNER WAS KILLED, THE MAN PHYSICALLY ABUSED THE WOMAN BEFORE THE MURDER." As well as, "30% to 60% of perpetrators of intimate partner violence also abuse children in the household"[2] As has just been shown, repeated domestic violence can result in death for the victim of the violence. As well as the possibility of child abuse. Due to this, my first contention will be, Contention One- Self-Defense(Right to Life) Hobbes writes, "As FIRST a man CANNOT LAY DOWN THE RIGHT OF RESISTING THEM, THAT ASSAULT HIM BY FORCE, TO TAKE AWY HIS LIFE; because HE CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO AIM THEREBY, AT ANY GOOD TO HIMSELF. The same may be said of Wounds, and Chains, and Imprisonment; both because there is no benefit consequent to such patience; as there is to the patience of suffering another to be wounded, or imprisoned: as ALSO BECAUSE A MAN CANNOT TELL WHEN HE SEETH MEN PRECEED AGAINST HIM IN VIOLENCE, WHETHER THEY INTEND HIS DEATH OR NOT. And lastly THE MOTIVE, AND END FOR WHICH THIS RENOUNCING, AND TRANSFERRING OR RIGHT IS INTRODUCED, IS NOTHING ELSE BUT THE SECURITY OF A MANS PERSON, IN HIS LIFE, AND IN THE MEANS OF SO PRESERVING LIFE, AS TO NOT BE WEARY OF IT."[3] According to Hobbes, a person living in a society will give up certain rights, so that they may live peaceful lives, free from worry of harm caused by others. Yet there are rights that are unalienable and could never be conceded or given away. An example would be the right to live. Hobbes saw self-defense as a right that was essentially an extension of the right to live. His view was that by acting in violence, or with lethal force towards someone, the perpetrator of the act was forfeiting their right, and it was permissible for the victim to act in self-defense to save their own life, indeed even if that meant the death of the perpetrator of the violent act. Sub-Point A) The Doctrine of Double Effect Sir Thomas Aquinas is oft-credited with introducing this moral principle he argues, "NOTHING HINDERS ONE ACT FROM HAVING TWO EFFECTS, ONLY OF WHICH IS INTENDED, WHILE THE OTHER IS BESIDE THE INTENTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACT OF SELF-DEFENSE MAY HAVE TWO EFFECTS: ONE, THE SAVING OF ONE'S LIFE; THE OTHER, THE SLAYING OF THE AGGRESSOR."[4] Aquinas also writes, "Therefore, THIS ACT, SINCE ONE'S INTENTION IS TO SAVE ONE'S OWN LIFE, IS NOT UNLAWFUL, SEEING THAT IT IS NATURAL TO EVERYTHING TO KEEP ITSELF IN BEING AS FAR AS POSSIBLE."[4] Now cross-apply my statistics of deaths caused by domestic violence and we see that a victim of domestic violence acting in self-defense is indeed morally permissible in certain situations. Continuing on, one might reasonably ask a few questions: 1) Why cant this person just leave the one abusing them? 2) Calling the police is always a better option is it not? 3) Court System can issue restraining orders can they not These questions lead right into my next contention Sub-Point B) Society does not adequately protect peoples rights at certain times. A) Approximately ONE-HALF OF the (RESTRAINING ORDERS OBTAINED by women AGAINST INTIMATE PARTNERS WHO PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED THEM WERE VIOLATED. More than TWO-THIRDS OF the RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST INTIMATE PARTNERS WHO RAPED OR STALKED the victim WERE VIOLATED.[2] B) 15 PERCENT OF WOMEN WHO CALL THE POLICE ARE RE-ASSAULTED.[5] So even when police intervention is involved there are still cases where the violence is repeated. What we must also keep in mind is that 85 PERCENT OF ALL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS AGAINST WOMEN.[2] So in most cases of domestic violence the weaker of the two in the couple is the one being abused. When acting in self-defense one cannot expect a woman to successfully defend herself without some sort of safety measure or assistance in the way of a non-fatal or potentially fatal device can we? Its common knowledge that the case is the way I just detailed in terms of defense. In summary, I believe it is morally permissible for victims of repeated domestic violence to use lethal force in certain situations. This is because: 1) Self-Defense A) Doctrine of Double Effect B) Society does not adequately protect peoples rights at certain times. Though that is an extremely short framework I believe it does a sufficient enough job of showing why and in what situations the use of lethal force by victims of domestic violence is morally permissible. Once more I thank Zaradi for beginning this debate and look forward to reading his case. ---------------- Sources ---------------- 1) Websdale Neil, "Investigating Domestic Violence Deaths" NIJ Journal no. 250, Nov. 2003. 2) National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, "Domestic Violence Facts" Nov. 2007 3) Hobbes Thomas, "Leviathan." 4) "Doctrine of Double Effect" [http://plato.stanford.edu...] Sep. 2011 5) Felson Richard, "Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault" Jun. 2005