The ethical dilemma involved in whether or not it should be legal for victims to use deadly force against an abuser is whether the law should protect the victims’ rights to self-defense while also protecting the abuser’s rights to due process. On the one hand, Alonso & Jesus argues that allowing victims to use deadly force against an abuser could protect them from further harm and let them take matters into their own hands. This could be seen as a form of justice, as victims would be able to defend themselves and protect themselves from further abuse. Convulsively, allowing victims to use deadly force against an abuser could also be seen as a form of vigilante justice and raise questions about the legal system’s legitimacy. If victims are allowed to take matters into their own hands without the protection of the law, this could lead to a situation in which abusers are not given a fair trial and could be denied due process. Ultimately, this is an ethical dilemma that must be considered carefully. It is essential to ensure that victims of abuse can defend themselves and receive justice. Still, it is also necessary to ensure that abusers have their rights to due process respected. It is vital to ensure that victims of abuse can use reasonable force to protect themselves while also ensuring that the legal system can provide the necessary protection and justice to those accused of abuse. Therefore, the paper entails a counterargument that disagrees with the topic that victims should be authorized to use deadly force against an abuser.
The opposition believes that using deadly force by victims against their abusers should not be legal because it can result in a dangerous and deadly cycle of violence (Garrett et al.,). When a victim is allowed to use deadly force, it can lead to retaliatory violence from their abuser and further escalate the situation. It is also challenging to determine when a victim can use deadly force (Garrett et al.,). The standards and criteria for when it is appropriate to use deadly force are unclear and can lead to victims feeling compelled to use it when it is unnecessary. Additionally, victims may not always be able to assess their situation accurately and may use deadly force when it is not necessary (Garrett et al.,). This can result in an innocent person being harmed or killed, which is unjust. Furthermore, basing our argument on Garrett et al., they state that allowing victims to use deadly force can also be challenging to enforce. It is difficult to determine when and how much deadly force is appropriate, and it can lead to victims being charged with a crime even if they are trying to protect themselves. Allowing victims to use deadly force may also discourage them from seeking help from the police or other professionals (Leider & Robert). Victims may need to handle matters on their own, which can be dangerous and lead to further violence and abuse (Leider & Robert). Allowing victims to use deadly force can also lead to a culture of violence (Leider & Robert). When victims are given the ability to use deadly force, it can lead to a society that is more accepting of brutality and can lead to an increase in violent crimes. Allowing victims to use deadly force can also lead to a rise in vigilante justice (Leider & Robert). Victims may take matters into their own hands and attempt to exact revenge on their abuser, which can lead to more violence and further victimization. Leider & Robert states that allowing victims to use deadly force can also lead to misunderstanding the law. Victims may think they are allowed to use deadly force when they are not, which can result in them committing a crime and being charged with a serious offense.
Egan & Greg supports that using deadly force against an abuser should not be allowed. To protect themselves, victims of abuse may need to use deadly force to stop their abuser’s violent behavior (Egan & Greg). However, this action can lead to serious legal consequences and even death. Furthermore, allowing deadly force against an abuser only perpetuates the cycle of violence against victims. It is important to remember that violence is not the answer when dealing with an abuser. In some cases, using deadly force may be seen as an appropriate response, but this is rarely the case. Instead, victims should focus on seeking help from family, friends, and law enforcement. By taking this route, victims can avoid further escalating the situation and be assured that their abuser is held accountable for their actions. According to Egan & Greg, using deadly force against an abuser can also be seen as vigilante justice. This can create a dangerous precedent that suggests that violence is an acceptable solution to resolving conflicts (Egan & Greg). This can also create a situation where victims are encouraged to take matters into their own hands rather than seeking help from the legal system. It is important to remember that justice should be served in a court of law, not on the streets. Furthermore, using deadly force against an abuser can put the victim at even greater risk (Garrett et al.). This is because the abuser may be armed, and the victim may not have the necessary skills to defend themselves. In addition, the abuser may be more likely to retaliate against the victim if they feel threatened. By not allowing the use of deadly force, victims can protect themselves without putting themselves in further danger.
In conclusion, victims should not be allowed to use deadly force against an abuser. While using deadly force may seem like the only recourse in some situations, the risks and consequences far outweigh the benefits. Victims should focus on seeking help from family, friends, and law enforcement to ensure that their abuser is held accountable for their actions. Allowing the use of deadly force only further perpetuates the cycle of violence against victims. Additionally, allowing victims to use deadly force against their abusers should not be legal. It can lead to a dangerous cycle of violence and be difficult to enforce. Furthermore, it can lead to a culture of violence and vigilante justice and can also lead to victims misunderstanding the law. Instead, victims should be encouraged to seek help from the police or other professionals. This will ensure that victims are able to protect themselves without resorting to deadly force, and will also help to ensure that the law is followed and that justice is served.
Work Cited
Alonso, Jesus A. “How police culture affects the way police departments view and utilize deadly force policies under the fourth amendment.” Ariz. L. Rev. 60 (2018): 987. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/arz60§ion=35
Egan, Greg. “Deadly force: How George Floyd’s killing exposes racial inequities in Minnesota’s felony-murder doctrine among the disenfranchised, the powerful, and the police.” Minnesota Journal of Law and Inequity 4.1 (2021): 1-23. https://lawandinequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Deadly-Force-Egan-1.pdf
Garrett, Brandon, and Christopher Slobogin. “The law on police use of force in the United States.” German Law Journal 21.8 (2020): 1526-1540. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/law-on-police-use-of-force-in-the-united-states/1DFF47526B6EAA16583200CBE786FDFF
Leider, Robert. “Taming self-defense: Using deadly force to prevent escapes.” Fla. L. Rev. 70 (2018): 971. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/uflr70§ion=35
write