Domestic Violence

[Josephine25]

I'm working on a speech for debate and I need a little help with the subjuct. "A Victim's Delebiate Use of Deadly Force is a Just Response to Repeated Domestic Violence."

[scrapinpeg]

Which side are you taking?

Are you arguing that non-reactive, deliberate killing is justifiable when someone is faced with a pattern of repeated physical abuse? If so, I would point to the myriad of studies that demonstrate that the cycle of domestic physical abuse routinely leads to death of the abused person if the cycle is not broken, usually by outside intervention over the objections of the abused person. If the cycle keeps overcoming attempts to break the cycle, then the abused person is truly threatened with death. Deadly force is justifiable when a person is faced with right-now imminent death and no safe retreat is possible. The abused person is facing death if the relationship continues, and for well-established psychological reasons is unable to escape the relationship. Therefore, the abused person is justified in using deadly force in self defense.

Are you arguing that the use of deadly force is not justified merely because someone is involved in a cycle of abuse? I would steer clear of arguments that it's the abused person's own fault that they're getting abused, because firstly nobody likes to hear the victim get blamed, and secondly there is ample evidence that the abused person is psychologically unable to leave the relationship. The pattern is similar to addiction, and is so strong that it is not at all uncommon for abused women to call their violent boyfriends to come get them at secret womens' shelters, thereby endangering not only themselves but all the other women there by disclosing the location. Instead of making any argument blaming the victim even slightly, you should instead argue that deadly force is only justified when the threat of death is imminent -- i.e., if you don't kill him this instant he's going to kill you right now. Premeditated, deliberate use of deadly force does not fall within this justification, and is plain murder. Killing to prevent a hypothetical future possibility of being killed is not justifiable.

Hope this helps give you some ideas on where to go with it. There are dozens more arguments to be made on either side, this is just something to stoke your creative fire.

Good luck.

[Phaeton]

There has to be some precedent in terms of pleading insanity by using battered women's syndrome. I don't know what it is, but there has to be one when it comes to these thigns...

[Josephine25]

I don't get to chose sides, I have to make an arguement for both aff. and neg.

[Josephine25]

There has to be some precedent in terms of pleading insanity by using battered women's syndrome. I don't know what it is, but there has to be one when it comes to these thigns...

Who says it's the woman that is getting beaten?

[keith]

here's a couple of 'interesting' bits from the UK that might be useful;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...776221,00.html

http://www.emmahumphreys.org/history.html

Edit and here's a cheerful list;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...662991,00.html

[daeceg]

Hehehe...I'm a debate coach....

Start with Thomas Aquinas. He's solid for aff, and you'll hear lots of arguments based off of his. Neg sounds iffy on this topic, especially for lay judges. Do you have a value/criterion established?

[Phaeton]

Who says it's the woman that is getting beaten?

A man can have battered women's syndrome. It's just what it's called. It's the rule of thumb.

Did I just say rule of thumb? That's sexist too. Can't beat your wife with anything wider than your thumb....

Things may not have politically correct names.