It is morally permissible to use deadly force as deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.

Thanks For excepting it seems i will go first. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind - It is because I agree with this quote by Mahatma Gandhi that I stand in strong negation of the debate. My value is Justice- the quality of being just, right, and fairness. Because the resolution is directly dealing with what is morally right I aim to bring what is the most just action. To achieve it we will look to my value criterion of Due Punishment. Every punishment must directly relate to the offence by what it is due. For further clarification I will provide these definitions which will structure the debate. Morally permissible- behavior that is in the bounds of the moral system Deadly force- aggressive force that has a substantial risk of causing death Deliberate- Done consciously and intentionally Domestic violence- a pattern of any abusive behaviors by a partner in an intimate relationship Contention 1: Killing cannot be considered due punishment in all or any cases of domestic violence. Sub point A: Domestic violence shouldn't be subjected to a universal punishment when domestic violence isn't universal. Consider the situation: A man has complete control over his spouse's economic and social resources. He then makes it clear to her that she cannot leave because of her lack of money, job history, and even friends. Although she realizes the fact that it is not impossible to leave, she continues to undergo the emotional torture because she perceives it as a better option than leaving. This by definition is a case of emotional and economic domestic violence. How can it be Justifiable to use such a drastic physical force when there was no physical abuse and other options are available? The point is that cases of domestic violence like this exist and not all cases are as drastic as one would assume. We cannot universally say that all domestic violence offenders deserve to die just because they have committed more than one abusive crime in their lifetime. The reason that the justice system is structured to have trials for every case is because no two cases are the same. We can't attempt to universalize punishment in this instance any more than we can with other crimes. Sub point B: Killing isn't comparable to domestic violence because life is our greatest right. The only appropriate retribution is that which is equivalent to the rights which have been violated to begin with. Taking life is not proportional to the rights violation which occurs as a result of repeated domestic violence. Joshua Dressler writes: Joshua Dressler [Professor of Law, Ohio State Univ. College of Law]. Battered Women and Sleeping Abusers: Some Reflections. 3 Ohio St. J Crim. L., 457, 2006. if someone is violating my right to bodily integrity by repeatedly shoving his finger into my chest, that does not give me the right to kill him to stop his offensive conduct. My right to bodily integrity entitles me to demand that he desist and, if that fails or if such a request would be futile, I surely have the right to use proportional force—perhaps a shove—to get him to stop. If the only way I can stop his obnoxious behavior is to kill him, I may not do so, even though he is violating my autonomy. Killing him would be a disproportional response. The punishment must be directly comparable to the offence. There can be nothing worse than the punishment of killing for the simple reason that every other offence can be healed. Though the victim may be robbed of liberty and happiness, they still have the opportunity to regain it because they are alive. Life provides the opportunity to exercise all other rights, and therefore, it is more valuable than all other rights. A victim's use of deadly force would therefore be disproportionate and morally impermissible. Contention 2: Social norms regulate morality and discredit the resolution. Because the punishment of taking away someone's greatest right, the right to life, is so heinous, there has to be specific moral criteria to even begin to justify or consider it. The concept of what is moral differs so drastically between everyone. What is morally permissible for me may not be the same to you. If you didn't look to societal norms there would be no way to regulate morality, so for any debate regarding what is moral we must look to societal norms. One form of norm adoption is the formal method, where norms are written down and formally adopted like laws and legislation. Formally all norms completely clash with the resolution. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Jeffrey Kirchmeier, "Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: The Paradox of Today's Arbitrary and Mandatory Capital Punishment Scheme," 6 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 345 (1998). Crimes that are capable of receiving the death penalty include first degree murder, some forms of rape, especially of a child, and (on a national level) treason against the United States along with attributing aggressive factors. Even if the abuse was solely physical, no state or national legislature would consider it one of the aggravating factors that justify capital punishment. The resolution implies that the deadly force is premeditated and the act is not out of immediate self defense, if the victim were to act, they themselves would have a chance to receive the death penalty. How can it be morally permissible when the end result would have the victim with a worse quality of life then before?