Oct 1, 2006

the November-December Lincoln-Douglas topic: domestic violence begets justified violence

Or, more accurately, "Resolved: A victim's deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence."

As in all LD debate, this one hinges on definitions. "Deliberate" implies thought out, instead of heat-of-the-moment or self-defense scenarios--which would mean that the victim might have the time and ability to act within the law. Slippery slope to vigilantism, anyone? "Deadly," of course, raises the moral stakes--and possibly throws the resolution out of balance. "Repeated" is tough, because it potentially sets a minimum standard at two incidents.

Those are my Sundy Sunday morning thoughts. They'll have two months to be refined or discarded.

Update: Hey, all you folks who are dropping by, looking for an easy angle on your LD case: how about sharing your thoughts in the comments? Let's start a debate.

45 comments:

Murky Thoughts said...

The answer very clearly is "it depends" and that in any particular case "there's no knowing for sure."

Jim Anderson said...

And let's not forget "There's no accounting for taste," and "One man's terrorist is another man's drinking buddy."

Oklahoman debater wanna be said...

Since this topic is extremly philosofical (spelling?) I will now sumarize john locke. John locke states that everyone posseses equal rights as long as the natural rights of otheres are not violated.

Now since the abuser takes away the victims natural rights he is no longer entitled to his natural rights (life being one of these).

John locke also states that the only justification for law is to prevent actions which infringe on individual rights.

Thus, since REPEATED domestic violence infringes on individual rights, deadly force is a morally just response.




On the flip side one could argue that One form of violence does not justify another. eye for an eye?






Key word in the resolution is REPEATILY!!!!
IF it had been the first time, then during the abuse she would have the right to use deadly force to protect herself. BUT since this IS NOT the first time it was her responsibility to leave the situation and seek help. not plan murder. (I use she, but yes i do know that males are also the victims sometimes)

Flip side to this argument: Some fear to seek help because if the abuser finds out they would kill them. Some will plot the murder because during the abuse the abuser is more alert and ready for an attack and if the victims force failed the abuser would be more apt to kill. And as to it being their responsibility to leave the situation and seek help. the resolution never states that it is an adult that is the victim. Kids are also domestically abused and sometimes do use deadly force as self defense.



Since this is a Phylisophical topic there is no right or wrong answer. so we must look to the specific case, and if the victims particular response was moral.

Jim Anderson said...

Spelling is for the final draft. Welcome aboard, oklahoman. Let's look at your first position.

Suppose we agree that your take on Locke is accurate: abuse violates rights, and laws are justified if and only if they prevent rights infringement.

From there you get to, "deadly force is a morally just response." The problem is, your victim is acting outside the law. You'd have to warrant the action within Locke's intersection of morality and legality. Locke also posits a social contract: we give up our anarchic tendencies toward vigilantism, and let the state and the justice system enforce the laws.

You might want to see if-how-when Locke supports "taking the law into your own hands," when the law is insufficient.

I'll address your second contention when I've had a little more sleep. Thanks for opening up the discussion.

Jim Anderson said...

"IF it had been the first time, then during the abuse she would have the right to use deadly force to protect herself. BUT since this IS NOT the first time it was her responsibility to leave the situation and seek help, not plan murder."

This is an interesting and counterintuitive way to look at the necessity of "repeated" in the resolution. If the incident happens one time, a victim has a right to self-defense, but after that, the victim is responsible to leave... why? What is the warrant here?

Think about moral presumption: if someone slaps you, and you pull out a gun, are you defending yourself, or have you racheted up beyond self-defense?

However, if someone slaps you again and again, and you are powerless to stop them for whatever reason (and there are many), wouldn't it seem more reasonable to then pull out the gun?

"She can always leave" simply isn't true. And even when it is, it doesn't stop the abuser from coming to find her--or other victims.

(In your "flip side" you note other potential objections.)

"Since this is a [philosophical] topic there is no right or wrong answer, so we must look to the specific case, and if the victim's particular response was moral."

Be careful about using the word "moral" as a stand-in for "just." Also, "since this is a philosophical topic there is no right or wrong answer" is an unwarranted assertion which I would challenge as a non sequitur. In fact, your use of the word "moral" assumes that there is a "right" answer out there.

gatordebater said...

I really like oklahoman's point about the law's ultimate purpose being to protect individual rights (acc. to Locke), and actions should be taken according to that despite the law, in which jim later points out would violate the social contract and become "anarchic."

But let's put it this way. were the college students that protested in tienamen square against communism in China just in their actions, despite the fact that they have acted outside the law? (assuming that it is already agreed that communism is a bad thing). I would think so.

in the same way, a victim's use of deadly force upon another, agreed that their rights were violated, is a just response as well, despite being illegal or not (since laws are simply means towards preventing rights infringement)

**********

"Locke also posits a social contract: we give up our anarchic tendencies toward vigilantism, and let the state and the justice system enforce the laws."

saying that both giving loyalty to the state & spiting our tendencies and saying that laws are justified if and only if they prevent rights infringement is counterproductive when rights are actually being infringed. thus we would have to pick one of the two: give up our loyalty to the state to follow laws or allow our rights to be infringed. Of course the former is more reasonable.

on the contrary: just could also be defined in consideration to social norms such as following laws. also victims could have seeked alternative solutions within the boundaries of the law that would also protect their rights (i.e. support groups, restraining orders, etc.) however at the same time, since we're talking about repeated crimes, these may have failed at the pinnacle point that victim meets the abuser and responds with deadly force.

-------------------------
-------------------------

on the second point about the slapping example and so forth (lol, that's the thing i remember the most about it), i'd have to agree.

Furthermore, although the victim could have seeked help during the first round of violence, it's been proven that violence escalates with the course of time--reaching the point in which the victim feels he/she has their life threatened.

while the first round of violence
could be forgiven, according to the victim, the point of reconciliation is when the victim realizes the danger at hand.


wow that was a really long comment. i have a problem with jargon sorry.

Jim Anderson said...

gatordebater,

Great nickname. I agree that the students in Tianenmen Square acted justly--but again, we're talking Locke here, and you have to show where Locke says we have the right to take the law into our own hands. The law, as written, ostensibly protects victims against abuse (as a form of assault). To complete your argument, you have a burden to show that the current conception of the law is unjust, either in principle or in practice.

Also, laws aren't only a means of preventing rights infringement. They're also a means of arbitrating competing rights claims--hence the need for a social compact.

Thanks for sounding off. You're helping me--and others--to think more deeply about the subject.

oklahoman debater wanna be said...

Alright guys. im back! so now ive thought about the case some more....

Neg. Side!

BECAUSE!!!! the Resolution states....deliberate use of deadly force. DELIBERATE! this is the key word to catch. It means that...dunnanna...here comes the research! Black's Dictionary of law states that, deliberate means: intentional, PREMEDITATED, fully considered, un impulsive, slow in deciding.

Now your wondering so what right??
Well simple really. It is no longer self defense because it is premeditated. She thought this out. She plotted using deadly force against the abuser.

So since the key points of all of your arguments seem to work only because the "victim" is using self defense.

Jim:Think about moral presumption: if someone slaps you, and you pull out a gun, are you defending yourself, or have you racheted up beyond self-defense?

However, if someone slaps you again and again, and you are powerless to stop them for whatever reason (and there are many), wouldn't it seem more reasonable to then pull out the gun?

They are no longer getting slapped and pulling out a gun. Because of the word DELIBERATE the person is now being slapped in the face repeatily, powerless to stop them, but their not heat of the moment, self defense pulling out a gun, they are waiting until they are no longer in harm, and instead of going to authories they are taking the law into their own hands and plotting to secretly go shoot the slapper.


Gatordebater(love the name):"these may have failed at the pinnacle point that victim meets the abuser and responds with deadly force."

because of the word DELIBERATE there is not pinnacle point that the victim meets the abuser and responds with deadly force.

"in the same way, a victim's use of deadly force upon another, agreed that their rights were violated, is a just response as well, despite being illegal or not (since laws are simply means towards preventing rights infringement)"

I dont even know how to respond to this. IF you look at it this way, your saying that if some guy comes and steals my shoe, well hes infringing my rights so its okay if i pull out my gun and shot him. I dont think so. This is the problem with taking the laws into your own hands, it means everyone can and i think we all can see the problems with this. This is why we left the state of nature and join a social contract, "putting laws into your own hands" puts you back into a state of nature. And putting the laws in your own hands is illegal, thats why many many mandy cases the "victims" who use deadly force get charged with manslaughter.




in black's law it also states that it IS legal to use deadly force for self defense, BUT you can only use deadly force if the perpetraitor is causing deadly force to you.

This goes along with the criminal code that says if someone comes at you with a knife, you cannot use a weapon greater than a knife, EVEN IN SELF DEFENSE!

So this also takes out jim's slap/shot statement.


im really tired, so i dont know how put together my thoughts are...so please bare with me.

I bet you guys cant tell that im really pro. on this one!! So ill see if i have enought time to totally contradict and argue against myself...something i tend to like to do apreantly...yes i know...maybe im crazy!haha

Jim Anderson said...

Part of the "in cold blood" argument can be turned toward the Aff, I think. If we argue that "deliberate" means "carefully thought out," and that it proves that the victim has time and is reasonable enough to consider going to the police, we have to immediately ask, if they're so deliberate and rational, why do they make the impossible decision to take the law into their own hands?

Perhaps it's because their action is, in fact, entirely rational: they are achieving justice that the law will probably fail to provide, and even if it does, the abuser won't be locked up forever--and the next time, he won't be satisfied with a beating.

There has to be a sense of proportion, and a compelling reason to avoid normal legal channels. The reasonable fear of retaliation might satisfy here.

Also, one could argue that self-defense laws are too time-dependent and biased against these unique situations. If a victim can't physically fight back because of a strength differential and because it heightens the risk of injury or death, and again, the legal system provides little or no recourse, then they have to strike when they can, when the aggressor is weak.

Trust me, if you think your sleep deprivation makes you incoherent, you should try teaching and coaching in combination.

That ZestyComedic Interp Kid said...

It really depends on how you look at justice. If you look at it as being societal welfare, the Aff can make a compelling case for it being a positive effect on society as a whole to end the whole 'cycle of violence' which, supposedly, breeds the majority of our criminals.

Jim Anderson said...

Ah, Zesty, but even with Soc. Welf. as your value, you could argue that if domestic violence victims are allowed to take the law into their own hands, it breeds vigilantism, encouraging others (who feel subjectively aggrieved, regardless of the objective injustice) to do the same.

oklahoman debater wanna be said...

It really depends on how you look at justice. If you look at it as being societal welfare, the Aff can make a compelling case for it being a positive effect on society as a whole to end the whole 'cycle of violence' which, supposedly, breeds the majority of our criminals.

Eh to this zesty i must say...arent you contradicting yourself by stating that the was to end violence is with violence?? And as jim said this would give everyone the right to just kill someone if they feel they are abused. basically it would lead to totaly caos, and mass murders.

Reza Mesmarian said...

?Are these good Definitions for aff?
Deliberate – Intentional, (Yes, I will intentionally use self defense to protect myself)
Repeated – Occurring again and again. Hit more than once at one time. You are in an incident of DV, You get punched once, twice, three times…. This is repeated, in order to protect yourself and at that moment there is no other choice but to use some kind of physical force to defend yourself and sometimes that physical force may be capable of causing death.

Jim Anderson said...

Reza,

Defining deliberate as "intentional" is broad, and allows for circumstances that occur in the "heat of the moment," which is a traditional rendering of self-defense doctrine. You'd have to defend it against a more specific definition, or a legal definition, though.

"Repeated – Occurring again and again. Hit more than once at one time."

This is intuitively weak. Most people think of repetition as occurring at discrete points in time, over a period of time. Your opponent may accuse you of stacking definitions to gain an unfair advantage.

ONHOLiDAY said...

the problem is that the resolution does not imply there is a government. for all you could assume, it could be acted in an anarchy. so you could take out all the philosophies about having a "just government" or anything along that line. there being a huge advantage to the aff.
of course, you could also define domestic violence as violence within a country as well. if you define domestic violence as maybe a civil war, then the whole round would change. that could benefit the aff or neg.

ONHOLiDAY said...

also, i don't agree with oklahoma on the "she" part. that's being sexist. nor do i agree with the locke part either. locke's philosophy included laws and a government. (see above)

Anonymous said...

what about in countries where women are discouraged from reporting domestic violence? where authorities believe it is the woman's fault and refuse to lift a finger to help?

http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/women/women2.html

If the woman has no alternative and no one to receive help from, what is she supposed to do?

Jim Anderson said...

ONHOLiDAY,

"The problem is that the resolution does not imply there is a government."

That's why negs built up solely on the "escaping domestic violence is difficult" premise are doomed to fail.

(If pressed, I would argue that the legal language of the resolution-- "victim," "deliberate," "deadly force," "domestic violence," all presumes not only a government, but a government with a western-style legal system. It's fruitless to talk about "domestic violence" in a society that doesn't even recognize it.)

"of course, you could also define domestic violence as violence within a country as well. if you define domestic violence as maybe a civil war, then the whole round would change. that could benefit the aff or neg."

That little bit of definitional sophistry was suggested to me by a lawyer friend. It's clever, but probably won't sway many judges.

Anonymous said...

If you had any intelegence in the world the answer woudl right there and then when your ead it explain to you that it depends. Why should there be a debate on a qustion already awnsered and put on paper and in the books. In my "opinion" this blog has no point and is taking up useful space on the web.

Anonymous said...

poopy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

If you really want a woman's perspective, you won't be using Locke to support this. The arguement does revolve around the idea that the deliberate (not equal to premeditated) use of deadly force (legal def; not always relating to death/murder)can be just after repeated bouts of violence. The law would support deadly force in cases where the person feels they are in mortal danger. Even the police have the right to DF when the perp is threatening them. Why then cannot citizens use DF for the same reason? There is, I believe, a Florida court case/legislation to back this up. Just a thought.

gator debater said...

Well anonymous somebody, I agree that this resolution is broad, so the Neg can easily argue that each case depends. However, that is why arguments in this resolution are limited to include broad premises as well—encompassing all cases of DV. We also need a good, narrowed definition of DV (this is a MUST, in my opinion, to ensure a fair round.)
And this question, by the way, is NOT answered, universally (only in Canada/US, in fact). Just because it is an issue that is already decided upon, does not necessarily mean it is right. Questioning the “truth” of things is the trigger to progressive changes. Sure slavery was a very decided concept for thousands of years—but it simply already being decided by law—does not make it right. Geesh, if we were all as careless about issues that were already decided upon, George Bush would not be so unpopular and the 60’s wouldn’t have existed (Nooo!).

gator debater said...

Wow, onholiday, if you take away government, that doesn’t do much except eliminate arguments considering legal interventions. Vigilante or not, legal or illegal, the morality of people’s actions will still remain the same. Also, it depends what state of nature you’re talking about. If you are not agreeing with John Locke, and therefore be a more Rousseau/Thomas Hobbes sort of view where, in a state of nature, people act like murderers and crazy lunatics, this would be the most DISadvantage to the affirmative.

Because now, you’re saying that the victim has nothing stopping them from using deadly force. They have no social norms instituted into their minds to tell them to stop. A person with no moral conscience will obviously act unjustly, as will the abuser. In fact, the whole idea about a state of nature is entirely unjust—that is why we’ve moved into a society. The affirmative is surely to lose.

But on the flipside, the aff does have an advantage about it being legal or not (which, by itself, is not a standing argument for the neg.) but that’s about it. Maybe I’m thinking too narrowly, but that’s the way I saw it.

Also, the way that we use Locke in this resolution does not include laws/government. We are using his idea about rights being retributive. Government or not. He also includes nothing about laws in a government. He provides guidelines for people along with how a government should act.
----------------------------------

I think legality as a whole doesn't have a very strong standing in this resolution.

Going back to oklahoman (not a bad name yourself, by the way):
oklahoman: "they are waiting until they are no longer in harm, and instead of going to authories they are taking the law into their own hands and plotting to secretly go shoot the slapper."

DELIBERATE. hmm....tricky tricky.

I can see your point. However, making out the word DELIBERATE, as in premeditated/slow in deciding, does not also presume what you're basically saying is first-degree murder.

It simply means the victim has thought about it. It could still be in self defense--in defense of their home, security, children, etc. However, it does not mean that they have thought it out reasonably. THAT is the question my friend :) Being a victim of abuse could suggest many mitigating circumstances.

We're not simply talking about a reasonable person shooting an innocent down deliberately. This is a person who has done wrong to the victim. The victim is a person whose mind has been twisted by the abuser. Tricky tricky.

I'll write more when I have gotten more sleep.

Charlotte said...

gator debater,
for the aff case, you could easily say that there's nothing(no gov't) stopping them from being protected so a just response could become deadly force.
also the only way the negative can win is through proving that it is UNJUST for deadly force to play a part in this resolution.
what i'm basically trying to say is that when a negative goes up and says "there are other more just ways to provide justice to these victims, such as [put law enforcement here].." then you can go attack their case saying "there isn't any guarantee that there is a government at all. and plus, the resolution is saying it's A just response, not the only one."

but i will take the idea of hobbes into consideration

Charlotte said...

oh and under the social contract that locke proposes, there must be a government involved. a government is any type of organization and without it, the social contract does not exist.

ONHOLiDAY said...

hm i don't know why it showed up as "charlotte"

Valid Point said...

I am actually working on this case currently, as amazing as that is. I agree with most of you, however you're using the criterian of Locke. Why not Hobbes who's main philosophy was on the preservation of life???

Chance H. said...

Ok, so, obviously attacking vigilantism (sp?) is going to be a popular argument for the negative. Any defenses/attacks for this? I was thinking maybe refrences to points in history where vigilantism had a positive effect. Possibly because like oklahoman said earlier, there may be no government, and the resolution doesn't implicitly state it so, vigilantism may be required, thus making it just. But, hey, give me your thoughts please!

Jim Anderson said...

John Brown's attempt to free slaves might serve as a historical example.

Anonymous said...

I like to eat my own poop sometimes but still you know that i liek that big round juicy apple to...lol i eat eggs.

Tony said...

Fuck this shit! My case can beat the shit out of yours. It's about John Rousseau. Tell me if you want some help from someone that closed out finals last year.

Jim Anderson said...

Actually, it's Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And, to be technical, it's impossible for one person to close out finals. (It's also "someone who.") But hey. We're open-minded.

Jane said...

Quick question:
could just be defined as "valid within the law, lawful"? That's how a lot of law texts define just, and for neg, it'd be very helpful because if "premeditated/ intentional" is used to define deliberate force, then a premeditated use of force would clearly be unjust, since it would not be within the bounds of law.
Or would this simply apply for US law and hence be completely irrelevant?

Jim Anderson said...

Not sure about the "deliberate" and "deadly force" definitions in other legal areas--but if your opponent accepts your definitions, you've got nothing to worry about. (Black's Law Dictionary, for one, is quite US-centric, as are all English-language dictionaries that most competitors use.) If anyone pulls US-centrism on you, take careful note if they're using similar strategies unknowingly.

Whatever you do, don't ask your judge to put on the veil of ignorance. Please.

CA_Highschooler said...

Yah, well this website has some serious good stuff in it; not like the utter shit on the other websites. For the aff, other than Locke and Batter women's syndrome, i can't come up with other arguments!

CA_Highschooler said...

Yah, well this website has some serious good stuff in it; not like the utter shit on the other websites. For the aff, other than Locke and Batter women's syndrome, i can't come up with other arguments!

Anonymous said...

hey guy tell me this how would bring in hoobs and roussue here like i get the locke point of view but is there any way i can use hobbs for aff?

Jim Anderson said...

Hobbes on the Aff? Hmm....

Hobbes' social contract basically grants the sovereign the right to do whatever it takes to maintain order and keep humans out of the "state of nature." Hobbes works better for the neg, as a "rule of law" case.

Whatever you do, don't use Rousseau.

Khandoker said...

so for the aff we are stuck with locke is there anyway we could bering in mill the utellartiarn view or teh otehr other guy con-te-in? please excuess my spelling!

LD Lee said...

First off, there is absolutely no way that we are stuck with Locke on the Aff side. Actually, I argue that Locke works better on the aff side. In his Second Treatise he stated that when men leave the state of nature, they thereby give up the power of punishment to an executive whom they appoint. Due Process anyone. Of course this leads into a law debate, which I find to be a good idea, for if we are going to determine what is just, then we have to determine it objectively, not subjectively (a very bad idea). Therefore I believe Locke's due process (equal treatment before the law) works much better on neg than aff. And speaking of the aff case...

Hobbe's self-preservation is a wonderful idea. Search his text, he says word for word: humans are justified in any action that provides for self-preservation, including the destruction of another human life. Ummmm, self-defense or not, this is what the aff case is looking for.

One last thing: after reading these blogs, I have one word of advice: read. Ld'ers, come on, please read the philosophy before you use it. I've gone up against two categorical imperative cases in which the debater didn't know what a maxim was. Please read the text before you use it.

LD Lee said...

sorry, error in my text, at the beginning, I meant that I argue that Locke works better on the NEG side (which you could probly figure out from my argument lol)

Jim Anderson said...

LD Lee,

Thanks for stopping by. I agree that Hobbes states unequivocally that people can use deadly force for "self-preservation." Did Hobbes intend to include "repeated domestic violence" in that scenario? We need a warrant there.

Second, as I explained above, the overall thrust of Hobbes' political philosophy is justifying the actions of the sovereign, who not only has the people's protection in mind, but God's backing. (Hobbes wrote to justify monarchy.) So be careful of quote-mining Hobbes.

Lastly, I also completely agree that the Aff is not stuck with Locke--a little research, people! Don't just trust a blog!

Evelyn said...

For the affirmative:

Hobbes stated that some rights cannot be laid down, and he states that one of the rights that cannot ever be forfeited is the right of resisting them that assault you by force to take away his life

This is clearly talking about some sort of self-defense, and can be applied to repeated domestic violence if it can be proven to be fatal. However this alone does not justify the use of deadly force which is why later on when he talks about how we have the right to use our liberty to protect our lives even to the extent of taking the life of another person.

so for a self-defense aff this works, as well as any other Aff. this cannot be the entire argument though, you still have to prove many things and it could be quite complicated where simplicity (in my opinion) makes for a better debate round.

As for the Negative, i like the idea of using Locke. His ideas of rights are very solid, however you will have to be careful because of his war clause. He says that people give up their rights if they harm another persons rights. This can be turned to the negative side by saying that is why we form societies ect. Also, if people feel that their rights are not being protected they are supposed to overthrow the government (fix the problems inherent in the justice system) rather than take justice into their own hands. Is it just to respond to injustice with an unjust response.

Another idea with neg that i liked is the argument that an action can be justified but that does not make it just. The person may be justified in using deadly force, but that does not mean that using deadly force is just. I don't know if that made sense. so i will use the word excuse. We can excuse someone for an action because of the situation (in this case repeated domestic violence) but that does not mean that their reaction was a just response, it was merely excusable or justifiable.

Research is golden. Which is why i didn't quote the exact statements of the philosophers. Good luck to everyone here who is competing, it has been very interesting to read.

Jess said...

Interesting debate. This has definitely been helpful, to say the least.

Anonymous said...

well, here is the debate I am using in negation to the resolution- A woman claims that a history of abuse led her to kill her partner as he slept or was not engaged in violence. Can a woman who kills under these circumstances legitimately argue that she acted in self-defense – that, pursuant to the prevailing definition of the defense, she honestly and reasonably believed she was in imminent danger or serious bodily harm? No. If she can legitimately argue this, then justice is not being up held, therefore I negate the resolution stating "A victim's deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence."
Some confusing terms in today’s debate might include domestic violence, justice, self-defense, imperfect self-defense, deontology, and deliberate. Domestic violence is the infliction of physical injury, or the creation of a reasonable fear that physical injury or harm will be inflicted against or between members of a family. Justice is the fair and proper administration of laws. Self defense is the use of force to protect oneself, one’s family, or one’s property from a real or threatened attack. Imperfect self-defense is the use of force by one who makes an honest but unreasonable mistake that force is necessary to repeal an attack. Deontology is defined as the idea that actions are right or wrong based upon the means to complete the action not the consequences. Deliberate is intentional, premeditated, fully considered. All these definitions, except deontology, came from Black’s Law Dictionary and the definition for deontology came from the textbook Lincoln Douglas Debate.
Toady’s debate is concerned primarily with the value of justice. My value criterion will be deontology. The issue at hand is not the woman’s intentions but the means by which she came to her end. First, we must address that the actions in question were or would not be self-defense; second, today’s debate is based on how the victim came to his or her end not the consequences of that end.
Today’s debate is not an issue of self-defense. As earlier defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, self defense is the use of force to protect oneself, one’s family, or one’s property from a real or threatened attack. The victim in question used a deliberate deadly force, not a heat of the moment act of self defense. What the issue is one of Imperfect self-defense which, again, is the use of force by one who makes an honest but unreasonable mistake that force is necessary to repeal an attack. Imperfect self-defense by definition is what the victim in question participated in. Imperfect defense is punishable by law. Therefore, it is unjust to allow a person to act under imperfect self-defense and go unpunished. It is unjust seeing that the definition of justice is the fair and proper administration of laws. If the laws regarding imperfect self-defense are not upheld then justice is not upheld. If justice is not upheld then the resolution in question is void.
Second, it is not just how the victim came to his or her end not the consequences of that end. Though the abuser was terminated, the consequence of the victim’s actions, the means by which the victim came to his or her end were not just. This contradicts the value criterion, deontology, for justice which states that an action is right or wrong based upon the means not the consequences. The consequences of the victim’s actions were that he or she was safe and that his or her family was safe. While the consequences of this action are no doubt positive the means are undeniably negative. The means show an out right disregard for the law and for law enforcement. It is against the law to murder someone and because the victim in question was not acting in self –defense as proved in my first point, the victim therefore, murdered the abuser and ought to be punished by law. Unless the person who committed a crime is punished by law then justice is not upheld.
In conclusion, the victim of domestic abuse was not acting in self-defense and therefore his or her actions were unjust. Also, the means by which the victim came to his or her end were unjust though the consequences were positive. Therefore, the resolution in question is void and ought to be negated.