My New Aff case for sat

Affirmative
Domestic violence causes far more pain than the visible marks of bruises and scars. It is devastating to be abused by someone that you love and think loves you in return. Because I agree with California senator Dianne Feinstein I stand to affirm the resolution that states a victim’s use of deadly force is a just reasonable to repeated domestic violence. My value for this debate is Justice and my criterion is moral limitation. The moral limitation was created by Joel Feinberg's a modern legal philosopher, who taught at Princeton and Brown university, the moral limits are the limitations of morality according to Joel Feinberg's is the ability to uphold societies morals and if a government can not do this then it is the individuals duty to uphold societies morals. I offer the following
definitions:
Justice: the moral principle determining just conduct
Deadly force: the force required to kill a person or animal
Domestic violence: violence towards ones spouse
Deliberate: a considered decision
American heritage dictionary
My first Contention is that within the moral limits it is just to use any means needed to defend your person. Joel Feinberg's moral limits that it is legally moral for a person to kill to defend themselves. In legal morality the courts most use the laws to uphold morality. When the courts are unable to uphold morality for any reason it is the duty of those involved to uphold that ability with all power that they posses. In the case of White V. Strouble she was abused, physically and mentally for several years. Ms. White did every thing in her power to get out of the relationship, she called the police several times she got court orders, she had him arrested, and every time he came back despite all the orders that she had against him, until she one day shot and killed him. She was granted clemency and left that part of her life behind. It was part of Joel Feinbergs idea on moral limits that it allowed her to be granted clemency. The white V. Strouble case is one example of how the moral limits defend those who need to be defended, and that is the main point to America’s legal system and why it must be upheld in every case that comes to the courts.
My second Contention is that the necessary to feel safe is a universal need. In Maslow's hierarchy a persons need to feel safe is the second level of his hierarchy. In Maslow's hierarchy any individual can not advance to the next level until the levels below have been meet. Many governments do not give the needed protection to the abused. Roughly 40% of inmates are serving time because they continued domestic violence with the victims after a restraining order or they are on parole, from a domestic violence case. The modern Governments can't protect the victims safety in the way that individuals need to be protected. In Maslow's hierarchy safety must be upheld and the government can't defend victims to the degree that they need to be defended. As such Maslow's hierarchy must be achieved in any way that can be done even killing becomes a reasonable option.
My third contention is that the legal system is not capable to deal with all the domestic abuse cases. There are 960,000 cases of domestic violence in the U.S. per year, and around the world an estimated one third of all women have been beaten and forced to have sex by there husband. The statistics are too large to ignore. The truth is that legally the courts can’t adequately defend these victims. The court system handles doesn’t handle many cases of domestic abuse correctly. Say for a moment that the women calls the police on her husband after being beaten and the police come and believe her. They take the husband to a holding cell for the night. Then one of his family members come and pay for his release, then hr is on the streets and she has no idea. He comes back the apartment and kills her. So even if the courts are involved there is no guaranty that the woman is still safe. Even with the best that the current legal system can do they can’t ensure the safety of the women involved. I’m not saying that every woman has the right to kill her husband, but I am saying that women have the right to defend themselves against a repeated attacker. In many cases such as White V. Strouble the women was justified in killing to defend her self. It is both within the moral limit of an individual to kill in there own defense.