January/February LD debate topic

Thanks QT. == Definitions == Repeated means more than once, not habitual. If I "punched you repeatedly," it means that I hit you at least twice. It does not mean that I "made it a habit of hitting you." Repeated domestic violence is domestic violence that occurs at least twice. That's a low bar for retaliatory murder. == Alternatives to Deadly Force == I proposed that women *leave* an abuser rather than murdering him in his sleep. In response, my opponent cites a study which finds that women who leave their partners are six times more likely to be murdered than women who do not. There are a number of problems with this: 1. I can't locate this study and my opponent doesn't source it properly. I *was* able to locate a similar study which found that women were at slightly increased risk of being murdered if they separated from an abuser, but the effect only lasts for two years. [1] The biggest problem is that the DV victim *goes back* before the two years are up (and the abuser presumably forgets about her). "According to statistics, the average abused woman leaves her abuser seven to eight times before she leaves permanently." [2] Many of the women in the study were murdered when they returned. Leaving generally works, but the women need to *actually* leave and *not* come back. 2. This is an example of the base rate fallacy. Although it sounds really scary to say they were *six* times more likely to be murdered, this isn't a surprising statistic if the base rate is small. For example, if I increase my annual income *sixfold,* that sounds really impressive. Unless I tell you that my annual income was one dollar. Then a sixfold increase does not sound as impressive. So what is the base rate? According to the Department of Justice, there are 4 million women in abusive relationships in the United States, and each year, 1,000 women are murdered by an intimate partner. [1] Assuming 100% of the intimate partner murders were done by abusers, this means that a woman in an abusive relationship has a .025% chance of being murdered by her abuser. A sixfold increase doesn't sound quite as bad knowing that the base rate is .025%. 3. Statistics do not justify murder. If a statistic found that Latinos are more likely to murder someone than whites, that doesn't justify me going around killing Hispanic people "to prevent murder." Statistics, coupled with pre-emptive homicide, are dangerous because they deny free will. Not *every* abuser kills. At most, 0.25% of them do. We cannot say that leaving is not an option merely because it slightly heightens the chance that an abuse victim gets killed. And if every repeated abuser gets murdered in his sleep by his abuse victim, 99.75% of those men would have been innocent of murder. Most of the evidence points towards the need to strengthen the power of restraining orders and force police to respond more stringently to them. This seems like a less drastic solution than allowing pre-emptive homicide. == Immanence Requirement == My opponent *correctly* points out that older self-defense rules often assumed male on male violence. However, State v. Wanrow set a precedent that relaxed the requirement that women use *proportionate* force. The case concluded that a smaller victim may need to use larger amounts of force to subdue a larger attacker. Wanrow would justify an abuse victim *shooting* her attacker if he tries to beat her. However, Warnow does *not* relax the immanence standard. Even if someone bigger than you attacks you, if you survive, mostly unharmed, you *cannot* then shoot him in the back as he walks away. That is *not* self-defense. In the same way, murdering a man while he sleeps because he hit you 5 hours ago should *not* be considered "self-defense." We can relax the *proportionate force* standard but *NOT* the immanence standard. == Does battered woman's syndrome morally justify murder? == My opponent argues this under her #2 point under immanency. Dressler explains that there is a difference between an explanation that *excuses* one's actions versus one that proves one's actions are *free from wrongdoing* or *morally justified*: "Self-defense, after all, is a justification defense, not an excuse defense. The claim of a defendant pleading self-defense is that she has acted properly or, at least, not wrongfully, in doing what she did. . . . [In contrast,] an excuse defense is recognized in the law when the actor has performed a wrongful act—an unjustified act—but we believe that she should not be blamed for her actions." Arguing that the woman has been so emotionally scarred that she should not be blamed for resorting to murder is an excuse defense: we empathize with the woman and will be lenient towards her, but her actions were still morally wrong. Dressler explains that justification defenses must prove that the *act itself* was justified, whereas excuse defenses seek to prove that the *agent* who committed the act should not be held fully culpable. The insanity defense is an excuse defense that concedes the moral impermissibility of the act itself but seeks to excuse the act by appealing to the agent's lack of rationality. Professor Anne Coughlin has observed that battered women's syndrome is an insanity defense because it "defines the woman as a collection of mental symptoms, motivational deficits, and behavioral abnormalities; indeed, the fundamental premise of the defense is that women lack the psychological capacity to choose lawful means to extricate themselves from abusive mates." Dressler furthers that "It makes no sense, therefore, to describe a belief in ‘imminent deadly force' as reasonable—to say that killing a sleeping person is justified to prevent an imminent death—if the only reason for describing the situation this way is that the person suffers from emotional paralysis, learned helplessness, or is the victim of any other behavioral syndrome." == Slippery slope == Pre-emptive murder is pre-emptive murder. Allowing a battered woman's exception leads to a battered child's exception leads to a PTSD exception , etc. As soon as we allow exceptions to the immanency standard, we allow vigilante justice and pre-emptive murder. == The Social Contract == My opponent says that only violations of rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are violations of the social contract. So although breaking the speed limit may not be a violation, the following things are: abortion (Article 1), racial profiling (Article 9), privacy violation (Article 12), slander (Article 12), gay marriage (Article 16), denial of welfare benefits (Article 22), asking an employee to work weekends (Article 24), denial of financial aid for college (Article 26), and downloading copyrighted material (Article 27). [3] So according to my opponent, you can't shoot me for breaking the speed limit, but you *can* murder your boss for asking you to work overtime and the RIAA *can* murder people who pirate music. My opponent claims that society would first investigate whether a violation of the social contract has occurred. This makes *no* sense. If a woman wants to murder her husband in his sleep or hire a contract killer, she's going to call for a trial first? And then once he's found guilty of domestic violence, we let the wife murder him rather than putting him in jail? This sounds like a horrible justice system. Regardless, the abuser is innocent until proven guilty. The wife cannot shoot first and then have the state ask questions later. This is further problematic because every murderer could claim to be an abuse victim since the only witness that can contradict this story is now dead. If every murderer claims the victim violated the social contract, the state will have a hard time proving otherwise since their primary witness is already dead. My opponent doesn't really answer the analysis about how a forfeiture of rights has to be proportionate. We can't say a man's life is worth *nothing* because he has hit his wife twice. He should go to jail (and forfeit some of his right to liberty), but he shouldn't forfeit his right to life. That's far too extreme. My opponent responds to natural rights by saying natural rights don't exist. This would mean that in the absence of society (think Lord of the Flies), murder would be justified. The right to life is supposed to be "inalienable." My opponent's moral stance requires altering the very wording of the Declaration of Independence and its guarantee of inalienable rights. [1] http://www.freebatteredwomen.org... [2] http://www.wisegeek.com... [3] http://www.un.org...