Domestic Violence

Thanks to bsh1 for the Debate! Although it is normal for the Contender to rebuttal his opponent"s arguments in his first round, due to time constraints I have only been able to develop my case. Good luck once again! Observation 1: Con makes the observation that while I must show that the victim is immoral in his or her action, he must only show the victim is neutral or justifiable. Considering the nature of this round, I believe it is imperative that we note that rather than there being multiple different ways to classify lethal force, in this situation it is either moral or immoral, and cannot be simply neutral. Because this is a problem directly weighing societal benefits and the lives of individuals, it is a moral dilemma where no middle ground can exist. Con is apt in describing that he must prove the victim is justified in using force, however, he seems to indicate that justifiable is synonymous with neutral, when it is in fact, not. In reality I must prove the victim is unjustified, or immoral in his actions, and he must prove the victim is justified, or right in his actions. Although this observation does not necessarily enhance my position I believe it is needed as the observation provided by Con seems to indicate his position has more freedom for winning the round, when in fact, it does not. Observation 2: Domestic violence does not designate the ability for the direct victim of the abuse to be a child. When reviewing the definition of domestic violence we must note that domestic violence must occur between intimate partners, and that domestic violence can occur between "intimate partners who are married, dating, or living together."[2] The inclusion of only couples and not children as the victims of domestic violence is further revealed as "Delaware, Montana, and South Carolina specifically exclude same-sex relationships in their domestic violence laws."[3]. If same-sex relationships are not able to be classified as domestic violence in some cases, then how can an adults abuse towards a child count as domestic violence? Contention 1: Deadly Force can never be justified or declared as moral: Only excused Sub-point A: Deadly Force can never be justified as a response to non-deadly force According to an article by Cathryn Rosen[1], "Paul Robinson, a leading proponent of systematization of criminal law defenses, has identified three categories of justification defenses: n38 (1) lesser evils; n39 (2) authorized use of defensive force; and (3) authorized use of aggressive force. All three categories are premised on a balancing notion. An act is justified if the societal harm avoided outweighs the societal harm inflicted. Lesser evils justifications involve relatively easy tasks of balancing the relative importance of the physical harm threatened with the physical harm inflicted. The weighing required for authorized use of defensive and aggressive force is more difficult. Usually, the physical harms are equal -- the taking of human lives. Robinson tips the balance in the defender's favor, however, by emphasizing the importance of weighing more than the comparative physical injuries. Society also has an interest in the right to bodily integrity. When society's interest in the right to bodily integrity and the protection against physical injury are combined, they outweigh society's interest in protecting the aggressor from physical harm. Robinson identifies a uniform internal structure shared by all justification defenses. If certain triggering conditions occur, a necessary and proportionate response is permitted. The necessity requirement has two aspects. First, it requires immediacy of the triggering conditions. One can act only when there is no time to use any method other than criminal conduct to protect or further the interest at stake. Second, the defender may act only to the extent necessary to protect the threatened interest. That is, if non-harmful (i.e., noncriminal) or less harmful alternatives for avoiding the threatened harm are available, the infliction of criminal harm is not necessary or justified. Both aspects of the necessity requirement further the same goal. If justified conduct is noncriminal because it constitutes the lesser evil, the availability of a noncriminal alternative to avoiding the threatened harm defeats the claim. Because the justified conduct still causes a societal harm, it will be exculpated only if the greater harm was certain to occur and if no less harmful alternative was available. Otherwise the justified conduct will not be the lesser harm. The proportionality requirement serves a similar function. Even when the threatened harm is immediate and no less harmful alternatives are available, the maximum harm that may be inflicted cannot exceed the threatened harm. For example, deadly force never can be used to protect against non-deadly force. If the harm inflicted exceeds the maximum limit, it is not the lesser evil and cannot be justified." Sub-point B: The use of deadly force can be excused but not justified "Justified conduct is conduct that will be encouraged or, at least, tolerated under objectively identifiable circumstances that are not exclusive to the defendant. In contrast, excuse focuses on the actor's subjective perceptions. An excused actor has committed a harmful act that the criminal law seeks to prevent. Unlike a justified act, the excused act did not avoid a greater societal harm or further a greater societal interest. The actor is excused despite the harmful act because, due to internal or external pressure, she was not morally blameworthy. Under the circumstances in which the harmful act was committed, the actor did not have a fair opportunity to choose meaningfully whether to inflict the harm." Contention 2: There are multiple viable options for escaping domestic violence besides resorting to lethal force Even if you do not buy the idea that killing is never justified, when considering the presented case of a victim of domestic violence, we must accept that killing is not justified due to the other options available for the victim to escape the situation. Sub-point A: Government solves In the year 2000 alone approximately 300,000 incidents of domestic violence were reported[3], and "The United States has made progress in the last few decades in addressing this violence, resulting in welcome declines."[4] There exist multiple governmental and private agencies and programs which all offer public help and refuge from domestic violence, such as The National Domestic Violence Hotline[4], or The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services[5]. Additionally, new protections for victims of domestic violence are being implemented. "A SPECIAL court will sit in Calderdale to deal with cases of domestic violence. Victims will receive extra help and support from the new court - which is one of 18 new Specialist Domestic Violence Courts being set up by the Government. The programme promotes a combined approach to tackling domestic violence.. It involves the police, the Crown prosecutors, magistrates, courts and probation service, together with specialist support services for victims. Justice Minister, Bridget Prentice said: "I am delighted to announce a further 18 Specialist Domestic Violence Courts. "These courts have been a real success and are central to the package of support we offer the unfortunate domestic violence victims". Key features of the Special Domestic Violence Courts include: Trained and dedicated criminal justice staff with enhanced expertise in dealing with domestic violence, Magistrates specially trained in dealing with domestic violence cases and tailored support and advice from Independent Domestic Violence Advisors. Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: "Domestic violence is a devastating hidden crime which the Government condemns in all its forms". "[6] Sub-point B: Even in cases where the victim may have battered woman syndrome, their actions display the ability to leave Even reasoning defending battered woman"s syndrome "doesn't explain how women who are that helpless manage to stab their husbands repeatedly in the chest with butcher knives, shoot them at close range, or hire hit men to do the job. Nor does it explain why, if battered women are capable of such violent actions, they are incapable of non-homicidal responses such as leaving the house."[7] Tying it together: I have shown that the use of lethal force by victims as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence is immoral because the decision of the victim would not be immediate, but rather deliberate, and therefore the use of excessive force (including deadly force) would not be justified. Additionally, I have shown that the victim has additional plausible outlets for escaping domestic violence besides using deadly force, and as such the use of deadly force becomes not only unneeded but also immoral. (1)Cathryn Jo Rosen, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Temple University, American University Law Review, Fall 1986 ("The Excuse of Self-Defense: Correcting a Historical Accident on Behalf of Battered Women Who Kill" 36-11, Rosen received her JD and LLM from Temple University School of Law) (2)http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov... (3)http://www.ncadv.org...(National).pdf (4)http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org... (5)http://www.acf.hhs.gov... (6)The Times, 31 March 2009, "Extra help for victims of domestic violence," http://www.lexisnexis.com... (7)Gerald Caplan, Professor of Law at George Washington University, 1991(National Review, "Battered Wives, Battered Justice", vol 43, #3)