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

My opponent will try to make you believe that we live in a world where problems can be solved if we want them to be solved. Where a woman simply has to get a NPO to stop the abuse. Sure, if it were that easy. I will refute my opponents points and then dropped arguments. She first states: "My opponent rebutted my attack by stating my evidence was misleading. According to him, the amount of arrests due to domestic violence do not account for ALL the cases of domestic violence. This may be true, however, it does take into account the perpetrators of domestic violence, many of them which happen to be women." My opponent's evidence, if anything, reveals that gender profiling does not exist when it comes to domestic violence cases, not that gender-neutrality exists in domestic violence. I want to clarify something. I know domestic violence occurs outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. I never argued that. I gave ample evidence (even had to cut some out due to characters) that the victims of domestic violence were predominantly women. This just means we have more research regarding women when it comes to domestic violence so it makes sense that we utilize the evidence we have available to us. My opponent mentioned, "He also claims domestic violence in same sex relationships is under reported because they fear social exclusion. In that case, then, can men also under report, in fear that they will be perceived as "weak" and "feminine" if they do so?" Yes. That is one of the problems. Victims do not want to report it, or they cannot. Many victims suffer from psychological problems (as I revealed with evidence in round 2). Battered women syndrome and battered child syndrome applies to everyone. As I wrote in round 2, "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."" The fact of the matter is, many domestic abuse victims have no other way out. They are trapped. They want the abuse to stop and resort to deadly force. This is not bad. I stated in round 2 that there are positive consequences to a victim using deadly force. Alongside of the victim no longer being abused, I mentioned that money would be saved. My opponent attacked this part and responded with, "You can't say it's better for every transgressor to be exiled from existence because they cost too much money to maintain. If someone's burden on society is measured by their financial upkeep, then those who consume expensive medical services should also be exiled. Money is not a reliable gauge of someone's role in society." This is a straw man attack. I am not advocating for domestic abuse victims to kill their abusers or saying that they should. I am simply stating that we must realize that there are circumstances we are not aware of and understand why a victim feels the need to use deadly force. A victim's intention is not to kill their abuser because of their financial burden of society. Their intention is to stop the abuse. The consequences of a victim using deadly force will provide a net benefit. Once again, I am not saying victims SHOULD use deadly force, but only that it is morally permissible if they resort to it. My opponent also states this, "If they [abusers] pose a threat to others lives, they could be sent to jail and gain rehabilitation services before they presume their usual roles in society. I was attempting to establish this with my crossex questions, which he blatantly ignored. His attempt at utilizing consequentialism wasn't entirely effective." I have two responses to this. First off, law enforcement is not always reliable. I gave a study from Philadelphia in round 2 and my opponent questioned it's credibility: [Nancy; Law Professor at Santa Clara University School of Law; Voice for the Voiceless: The Case for Adopting the "Domestic Abuse Syndrome" for Self Defense Purposes for All Victims of Domestic Violence Who Kill Their Abusers; Criminal Law Brief; Spring 2009; 4 Crim. L. Brief 76] There is the source for it. I ran out of characters in round 2 to put full sources. My second point is that rehabilitation services for abusers are not effective. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice, measured two batterer intervention programs working with male offenders for their success rates. Men completing the two programs – one in Broward County, Florida, and the other in Brooklyn, New York – showed little change in their attitudes toward violence and a fairly high rearrest rate for subsequent assault. (2003) My opponent then goes on to state, "I already established that if they are afraid of confrontation, they may obtain a non-protection order that will protect them from further abuse." I have given ample evidence in round 1 and 2 that reveals why victims of domestic violence do not obtain a non-protection order. This is a copy and paste from round 1: "Once the violence begins, the woman may be too heavily invested in the relationship to leave or optimistic that they can turn things around. Christine Gilfillan, on August 22, 2010 wrote: "We want to believe that we can put the relationship back together, and we want to believe their promises that 'this won't happen again. Sometimes things get better. And Sometimes they don't."" My opponent is not synthesizing the evidence I am providing and continually makes the same claims. Later she writes, "It is clear my opponent intends to annihilate the abusers." It is not my wish for every abuser to be killed. I have to advocate for the moral permissibility of deadly force when repeated domestic violence is present. Like I said before, deadly force includes death and serious bodily harm. I am not "wanting" either of these things, but if a victim has to resort to it then I believe it is morally permissible for them to do so. My opponent says, "There is no reasonable ground for self-defense if the dispute has ceased. At that time, the victim may find other sources of aid, which I have already established are available to them." Where in the resolution does it say the dispute has ceased? Domestic violence is not a one time thing. For example, in State v. Gallegos, the New Mexico Court of Appeal reversed a battered wife's conviction of voluntary manslaughter where she shot and stabbed her husband while he was lying in bed after he had been drinking. Earlier in the day, the husband had sexually abused her and threatened to kill her. Moreover, in the past, he had beaten her and thrown her against a wall, causing the premature birth of their second child. I have already given evidence in both round one and two to convey the message that it is not that simple for a victim to find sources of aid. There are two points in time when abused women are at most risk of death: as they prepare to leave their abusers, and once they have left, thus, making exit for some abused women a very dangerous alternative to staying. (Marina; Temple University School of Law; 2008) She claims that victims can start a new life while at these shelters. That is extremely difficult to do, and I ask for evidence of how successful women shelter's are. My opponent concludes with saying that it is pretty simple for a victim to just get a NPO and everything will be fine and dandy. Once again, we do not live in an ideal world. Problems do not disappear in the blink of an eye. I will now move onto drops. My opponent drops the "hotline as an alternative" argument and does not address some of my evidence on her law enforcement point. She drops all of my arguments against her Social Contract criterion and does not give any offence against my criterion of Morality. Also, my opponent seems to miss my evidence about why victims cannot simply get a NPO from the police. Look mainly towards the criterion drop and I urge an AFF vote.