Is abuse (and retaliation for it) EVER justified?

[fervent ridge]

this topic can be about all sorts of abuse, sexual abuse, psychological, physical etc. but is it ever justified to abuse anyone?

context: the case of the menendez brothers who killed their parents (who sexually and physically abused them for years on end). they were given life without parole, yet there seems to be increasing pressure to let them free because they were victims of abuse.

for reference: https://www.biography.com/crime/menendez-brothers-murder-case-facts

[fervent ridge]

by extension, do you think the charges against the brothers should be dropped, or should they be punished for their crimes (and if so, how severe should the punishment be given the circumstances)?

[brittle yew]

but is it ever justified to abuse anyone?
no

[brittle yew]

The Menendez murders were brutal; 45-year-old José and 47-year-old Kitty were not so much killed as rendered nearly unidentifiable by 15 rounds from two 12-gauge shotguns.

should they be punished for their crimes
yes

not sure what the law was in 1989, but there's definitely situations where they could have legally killed their parents in a justifiable self-defense

but unloading 15 rounds of 12 gauge ceased being "justifiable self-defense"" like 9 rounds ago

I mean the facts of that particular case are quite clear, they flat out committed 1st degree murder

[astral storm]

Your question and context don't align.

No, abuse is never justified. Very simple answer.

The actual question seems to be whether retribution for abuse is ok.

Individually, I have no issue with an abuse victim taking vengeance.

As a society, we can't allow that to be acceptable practice.

If there is proof of the abuse, they should have reported it and let the courts punish them. If there is no proof of the abuse, there's no way to prove you murdered someone because of the abuse.

It should probably be considered as a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing and parole. If you murdered your abuser and have never shown any violent tendencies before or after there is less concern of another offense.

[vague pagoda]

Abuse is not justfied

Taking revenege for abuse is fine if you don't have the option to do something else (Like calling the cops)

Otherwise taking revenge is not justified

[naive ore]

In germany we have a judiciary saying, "your rights reach their finish line at the tip of your nose" meaning once you get physical with another person, the whole justification angle dissapears.

[fervent ridge]

for a deed of this severity, i think it depends on one’s trust in the judiciary system. those who are disenfranchised by the system are less likely to report to the police and let the system handle it; they would rather handle things themselves (sort of a reference to street justice).

[astral storm]

And that's fine, but that will and should result in consequences for them unless they were in danger at the time or some other situation that would legally justify it.

Becoming Batman in response to your trauma will never and should never be legal.

Even if I am cheering on the vigilante personally, if I'm on the jury they are probably going to jail.

[fervent ridge]

Is abuse (and retaliation for it) EVER justified?

to me if they’re gonna be let free because of the mitigating factors like the abuse, it’s gonna send a signal to society saying that retaliatory murder/crimes of similar severity are legal/allowed.

[brittle yew]

Even if I am cheering on the vigilante personally, if I'm on the jury they are probably going to jail.
they had a hung jury on the first trial, which resulted in a mistrial

these cases rarely get a 2nd trial unless the state's evidence is absolutely rock solid

and they did get convicted on the 2nd trial, because what they did was flat out murder one without any doubt about that

like it wasn't even a heat of passion crime, that could have very well gotten them acquitted, but you can't argue that if you wait for them to show up home and then just shotgun blast 15 rounds

[fervent ridge]

then do you have a possible reason as to why people are asking for them to be freed?

for example: https://www.change.org/p/jail-for-getting-abused-free-the-menendez-brothers?source_location=search

[brittle yew]

easily, because people feel that what they did wasn't morally wrong

[fervent ridge]

so theyre saying that two wrongs make a right

[brittle yew]

if it was up to me, no non-violent drug offender would ever go to prison

[brittle yew]

but the law says differently

[fervent ridge]

their parents did wrong, so they did a wrong to "correct" it?

[brittle yew]

essentially

[fervent ridge]

...

doesnt this just reinforce the point that an eye for an eye makes the world blind

but then again it seems unlikely they repeat such a deed on anyone else given they have no prior record

[brittle yew]

not necessarily, but generally yes

[brittle yew]

this is exactly why the way they did it was such a problem

[fervent ridge]

simply put in my opinion, i dont think anyone here is in the right

[brittle yew]

had it been a heat of passion crime, they might have got acquitted, and if not that, it would not be a murder one

[fervent ridge]

both perpetrator and victim have done massive wrongs

[brittle yew]

obviously

but morality aside, there definitely were ways for them to do the exact same thing making things very muddy legally

doing basically the same exact thing while they were being abused? Easy heat of passion + self defense strategy

[fervent ridge]

how valid is this point

keyword retaliatory

[brittle yew]

there are no mitigating factors to first degree murder

it was a planned act of revenge

[fervent ridge]

bains said the abuse was a "mitigating factor"

[brittle yew]

not to murder one

[fervent ridge]

this just sounds like revenge

so how is that mitigating

[brittle yew]

it was revenge, planned and executed

[fervent ridge]

exactly

[brittle yew]

like, this would have been almost easy to pull off

[fervent ridge]

if they are let free, it still goes to show that revenge is allowed/legal

in society as a whole

[brittle yew]

if the state can't prove it was planned in advance, murder one is gone and they are looking at murder two or manslaughter at the worst

[fervent ridge]

they even confessed to it

[brittle yew]

well it's why we as a society have "the killing of another human being" classified in several different categories

[fervent ridge]

they clearly had the intent to kill

otherwise why would they fire 15 shots with the 12 gauge

and blow their parents brains off

no way they can say "oh the shotgun went off accidentally"

[brittle yew]

generally

1. intentional & pre-planned
2. intentional, but not pre-planned
3. unintentional, but while you were in the wrong
4. complete accident that unfortunately caused the death of someone
5. depending on jurisdiction of course, perfectly legal as an act of self defense

[brittle yew]

in almost all US states it's perfectly legal to intentionally kill someone in an actual act of self-defense

[fervent ridge]

3/4 are manslaughter ig

[brittle yew]

it's also perfectly legal in Latvia, where I'm at, but the burden of proof is higher

[brittle yew]

yes

[fervent ridge]

idk what 5 is but in my country its illegal even in self-defense

1/2 are murder

[brittle yew]

5 is not a crime at all

[brittle yew]

yes

[brittle yew]

but yeah, it's why I said depending on the jurisdiction

but what they did was flat out intentional, pre-planned murder. As a society we should never say that it's okay to do that, no matter the circumstances

[fervent ridge]

exactly

[brittle yew]

they could have done the 2nd or 3rd and then rolled the dice with the jury, their choice to do it the 1st way, and they served their parents justice, and then law served them justice

but they didn't, so they shouldn't get any leniency on the grounds of being stupid alone

[fervent ridge]

well the law does what it does

it has no reason to empathise

[brittle yew]

justice has to be blind for that exact reason

this explains it perfectly

[fervent ridge]

yeah

[brittle yew]

if it was not pre-planned, the scales just might have gone in their favour

[fervent ridge]

well the judiciary is supposed to make decisions based off of evidence, not emotions

it should be blind in this aspect

[brittle yew]

they did get a mistrial the first time because the verdict was not unanimous

it's really rare for these types of cases to get another trial, unless the state is absolutely certain they can get a conviction

usually after a hung jury mistrial it just ends there, no prosecutor wants to try a case again unless they are totally sure they'll get it done this time

[fervent ridge]

but for some reason there's increasing pressure to do a retrial

[brittle yew]

in fact they were facing the death penalty

[brittle yew]

It's not likely to change anything, the facts of the case are very clear and not even being disputed

Both verdicts for the brothers were divided by gender; female jurors suggested voluntary manslaughter, while male jurors pushed for first-degree murder.[73] After a month of deliberations, the trial ended in a mistrial due to the two deadlocked juries.
it's funny how the society has shifted though

I think today male jurors would be more likely to make it voluntary manslaughter, and female ones to push for murder one

[fervent ridge]

theyre getting life

also, when people say that the parents "deserved to die/have some horrible fate cast upon them", what do they exactly mean? because the word "deserve" is a very complicated word in terms of moral implications (a very loaded word)

[brittle yew]

even if they got sentenced to death, it wouldn't have mattered, California stopped carrying out the death penalty in 2006, and in this millenia all of the Californian death row inmates had spent 20+ years there

[fervent ridge]

i see. but if there werent such a mistrial and delay they may have been sentenced and executed

[brittle yew]

I would personally take death over life in prison

I don't value my life that highly and I definitely wouldn't want to rot in prison until I die there from natural causes, absolutely no difference in the end except I wouldn't have to suffer for that long

[brittle yew]

now this would be a philosophical debate worth having

[molten pine]

Everyone has a different meaning. Some are literal, some are just angry and the treatment they gave to their children.

[fervent ridge]

yeah but justice doesn't exist in this world unless enforced...

[molten pine]

Well now you have to define justice.

Is justice true eye for an eye or just something "equivalent." Massive quotes for equivalent too

[brittle yew]

yeah, justice and law are not necessarily the same thing

in this particular case, I think everyone got served justice

the brothers felt like the law can't do the justice their parents (in their opinion) deserved, so they did so themselves

and then they got served justice for the crime that they did

[molten pine]

The contract we have with the state (at least here in the U.S.) is that we relinquish the right to enact our own justice in return for the state's protection and services. That's (in very short) why you can't abuse your parents that abused you.

[brittle yew]

The contract we have with the state (at least here in the U.S.) is that we relinquish the right to enact our own justice in return for the state's protection and services
it's like this everywhere, maybe except in majority muslim countries

it's a roman concept

[molten pine]

Yeah but I always specify just in case someone gets nitpicky

[fervent ridge]

in general i define it as bad things happen to people who do bad things etc., but the magnitude will certainly vary

[molten pine]

So karma?

Or something different

[fervent ridge]

similar to karma

except i don't believe in karma because it simply doesn't exist

[brittle yew]

in Rome, one of the possible punishments for crime was the loss of legal personhood, which essentially revoked the state's protections

in practice that meant certain death, because anyone could kill you then with no reprecussions, because you were no longer a person as far as the state was concerned

[molten pine]

I say we bring this back for people that cheat in risk

If you get busted cheating you only get to play with other cheaters

[brittle yew]

too easy to create a new account

but even AAA games have that problem

[molten pine]

Let me dream okay. I know the issues involved

[brittle yew]

actual cheating in Risk is actually easily preventable, which is coming in the network overhaul

then you'll just have the collabers left, but they are rare

[frail valley]

The proscriptions were just purges though

Like Sulla's purge and the Second Triumvirate's purge

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription

I wouldn't call it a contract with every citizen because the contract was only ever under the threat of removal for those in the political elite of rome or close to it

And I wouldn't call what we have nowadays a contract

Because we can't exactly sign out of it

We could theoretically do a revolution sure and then we are under the authority of a different nation-state

Same "contract", different authority

Government have a monopoly on violence

They have the police and are allowed to be violent

Everyone else is not

[molten pine]

I was more just referencing the social contract. Opting out would essentially be leaving the country but for obvious reasons not everyone can do that and even if they did most countries have similar dynamics between the people and govt.

[true zephyr]

Is abuse justified? No never.

Is retaliation/revenge for abuse ever justified? Other than the judiciary system, no never.

We shouldn't act based on hate, revenge, vengeance etc.

As for the sentencing, the guys commited a double first degree murder, they should be punished accordingly following local law.

[misty rover]

We'd have to define a lot of stuff in order to have a proper philosophical discussion,
But,
I do think retaliation can be justified.

Now Irl, it gets complicated when we allow exceptions and stuff when it comes to the law (mostly because of ~fairness),
But in theory, here's one case where I'd allow, for example, someone to commit murder.

A has done evil and will most likely do more in the future. B knows it.

B kills A.

I think B shouldn't be blamed for what they did; they most likely saved someone that was going to be A's victim.

Now, how would B know that, how can they rely on probabilities, and other points could be argued here.

But the main argument I'm putting here is : if something bad can be stopped by doing something (less) bad, then it might be ok.

So in the end, it might come down to just is utilitarism ok or not, we could also add some deontology in there

[true zephyr]

But in theory, here's one case where I'd allow, for example, someone to commit murder.

To me, as someone who is morally against any act of violence, this is an insane perspective that you would be circumstantially okay with murder.

A has done evil and will most likely do more in the future. B knows it.

I think it is interesting to name this as a ''real-life'' scenario, as from the way I view it, in a real life scenario it would be impossible to know for sure what someone else is going to do in the future. For this exact reason, this line of reasoning cannot be used in an actual judicial case.

I think B shouldn't be blamed for what they did; they most likely saved someone that was going to be A's victim.
By killing someone else. So from the perspective of person B, they are still a murderer, regardless of how you want to spin it. You may argue that you believe the murder was justified. However, as person B has commited murder, they are a murderer.

if something bad can be stopped by doing something (less) bad, then it might be ok.
I think this is a very scary line to reason through. Now in this example, you may feel it is justified. Although I disagree, I can understand the idea behind it.

However, the problem here is that you are trying to attribute objective values to subjective events. What you find important, bad, relevant etc, is different from how other people value those things. There is no objective way to determine what is ''good'' or ''bad''. It depends on the society you live, the time you live in, the color of your skin, the religion you follow, the shape of your genitals and so much more. Therefore, I think the argument you are giving doesn't work.

it might come down to just is utilitarism ok or not,
There are many many arguments against utalitarianism. The idea in itself is not ''the final solution'' to phillosophical debates about justice. So in short, not it is not okay.

[frail valley]

Murders are okay if they're funny

Goof it up a little bit

[misty rover]

Idk why murder scares people so much. Yeah, it’s bad. But there’s worse. Torturing someone for the rest of their life, for example, can be a lot worse.

If the judiciary system was actually doing its job, there would be no need for murder, but the fact is that it doesn’t. It’s extremely flawed. Exceptionally internationally.

I wouldn’t mind, for example, Putin getting murdered, because I think that would help the planet more than him staying.

I understand that this is purely subjective and how to choose who dies and who would just go to prison instead would be a huge issue, and that is why I said that Irl, that would be almost impossible to put in place.
However, this thread is only about personal opinion, and not “the right option for the future”.

Btw, believe it or not, but I am actually one of the most peaceful dude out there. Except for insects, I never use violence unless I’m forced to.

I think it is interesting to name this as a ''real-life'' scenario, as from the way I view it, in a real life scenario it would be impossible to know for sure what someone else is going to do in the future. For this exact reason, this line of reasoning cannot be used in an actual judicial case.

I don’t agree with this. While most of the time, you wouldn’t be 100% sure about it, people rarely truly change unless something big happens (okay this statement came from nowhere but just accept it, I don’t wanna have to find a reference for it T_T).

If an abuser would, for example, abuse (very badly) their children since they were born, have them die of like malnutrition (even tough they have enough money to afford the food needed, and some more), and then adopt or make new babies. I’d say the chances of that individual reproducing the same is very high. Not my best example so I’ll find another as well

Imagine the there’s a family of 4, 1 man, 1 woman, and 2 kids.
The man beats his wife and mistreats her to the point where she dies of like exhaustion or something. The kids know. Like 1 month later, the man finds himself another woman. 1 year later and the kids have seen him act exactly the same as they used to see him act with his old wife before he killed her.
The kids ask for help, but no one believes them/say they can’t help them/ it isn’t their problem. Someday the kids open the door to their new “mother” and she’s on the floor, bleeding. Seconds before that, they saw the man leave the house. In this scenario, I think we can agree the man is just gonna do the same. Or even if he doesn’t, if he keeps mistreating the woman like that forever, I wouldn’t blame the kids for killing him.

So you can pretty accurately, in certain cases, predict an event. 100% would be hard to achieve, but you can still have a high amount of chances

[misty rover]

By killing someone else. So from the perspective of person B, they are still a murderer, regardless of how you want to spin it. You may argue that you believe the murder was justified. However, as person B has commited murder, they are a murderer.

Yes, they are a murderer, so what? I would much rather have a murderer next to me that did so to help someone else than an abuser who only thinks about themselves. (Could have phrased that better, but I’ll leave it like that, it’ll make ground for discussion…)

The thing is, is that no (human) rule is absolute.
It’s all context dependent (if you ask me).
Murder should be bad, but can be good in certain cases. I don’t even understand why I must explain this. To me, this is just obvious.

Irl, it can be scary. I don’t think we could implement this reason in our justice system, not the current one, and hopefully not in the future as well, because we won’t need murder as an option, but let’s not deviate.

I agree what that :

However, the problem here is that you are trying to attribute objective values to subjective events. What you find important, bad, relevant etc, is different from how other people value those things. There is no objective way to determine what is ''good'' or ''bad''. It depends on the society you live, the time you live in, the color of your skin, the religion you follow, the shape of your genitals and so much more.

I still think my argument works though. It’s just that yeah, we would have to create a hierarchy of values and agree on definition and so on, but then again, context matters. Anyway, I’ve spent enough time on this, I gotta go do something.

There are many many arguments against utalitarianism. The idea in itself is not ''the final solution'' to phillosophical debates about justice. So in short, not it is not okay.

I don’t understand what you mean, and you just concluded with :

“No it’s not okay” but you didn’t give a synthesis of why T_T

[true zephyr]

I wouldn’t mind, for example, Putin getting murdered, because I think that would help the planet more than him staying.
Yeah its just that i fundamentally disagree with the notion that murder can be justified in any situation. We'll never agree on that point.

While most of the time, you wouldn’t be 100% sure about it
For me this is the end of the argument. If you cannot be 100% sure, you cannot use it as an argument. I get that you feel different about that, and that is fine. I just wouldnt be able to live with the idea that there would be a 1 out of a trillion odds that I was wrong and someone or something died because of that.

If an abuser would, for example, abuse (very badly) their children since they were born, have them die of like malnutrition (even tough they have enough money to afford the food needed, and some more), and then adopt or make new babies. I’d say the chances of that individual reproducing the same is very high. Not my best example so I’ll find another as well
Agreed but not factually 100% odds. And that's why I think you can't ever use such an argument. See also my comment above.

I think we can agree the man is just gonna do the same.
We really cannot. If you could see the future, you would be a very rich man.

100% would be hard to achieve
It would in fact be impossible unless you can see into the future.

Yes, they are a murderer, so what? I would much rather have a murderer next to me that did so to help someone else than an abuser who only thinks about themselves. (Could have phrased that better, but I’ll leave it like that, it’ll make ground for discussion…)
Hmm I believe murdering someone to stop others from being hurt is still abusive and egoistic behaviour. It's in my personal opinion in no way, shape or form any better than the original abuser in your example. But again, opinions differ.

The thing is, is that no (human) rule is absolute.
Agreed.

[true zephyr]

Murder should be bad, but can be good in certain cases.
I disagree. I can't think of a single scenario where murder would be good.

Irl, it can be scary. I don’t think we could implement this reason in our justice system
For sure we cannot. But I also think it's not only scary IRL. I think the line of reasoning you are following in your hypotheticals is also really scary. These are the things dictators like Putin or Orban tell themselves. That they do bad things for the common good so it is justified.

we would have to create a hierarchy of values and agree on definition and so on, but then again, context matters.
Only this is impossible because different people value different things. For example, maybe I value life before anything else, but you value being happy before anything else. Does that make it okay for you to kill anyone that is not happy, or kill anyone that causes unhappiness in others? Maybe it does from your perspective. But from mine it doesn't. And it would be impossible to find a middle ground as we differe fundamentally on our priorities.

Not that I'm trying to say you would want to do that, it's merely an illustration to show that I think the line of reasoning itself is flawed.

“No it’s not okay” but you didn’t give a synthesis of why T_T
Ignore that. I'm not sure anymore what I wanted to say there. There should be some argument after it but I cannot for the life of me recall haha

[misty rover]

Yeah its just that i fundamentally disagree with the notion that murder can be justified in any situation. We'll never agree on that point.

Well, that's unfortunate.

[misty rover]

I understand your thinking , but still, from a pragmatic pov, I just can't imagine a world in which someone killing, let's say, Hitler, in 1940, would be doing something bad.

Only this is impossible because different people value different things. For example, maybe I value life before anything else, but you value being happy before anything else. Does that make it okay for you to kill anyone that is not happy, or kill anyone that causes unhappiness in others? Maybe it does from your perspective. But from mine it doesn't. And it would be impossible to find a middle ground as we differe fundamentally on our priorities.

that is a problem, yes, but whether we bring murder or not in the discussion, this will always be a problem

I just wouldnt be able to live with the idea that there would be a 1 out of a trillion odds that I was wrong and someone or something died because of that.

The thing is that it already is the case with our current justice system. People don't believe you? Your life is ruined. That can, and does, happen.

You kinda contradicted yourself btw.

The thing is, is that no (human) rule is absolute.
Agreed.

I just wouldnt be able to live with the idea that there would be a 1 out of a trillion odds that I was wrong and someone or something died because of that.

You don't have that choice. If you admit that the world and rules that structure it are not absolute, then you must know that stuff like injustices do happen. Not always willingly, but people do get treated unfairly, and some even die from it (few examples, but happens)

Now if You can't live making those choices, it doesn't mean that they don't have to be made. Bad people exist, and we must punish them

You know what? Fuck it, I don't really wanna keep talking about this topic, it's too heavy and boring 🥲. Anyway, now you (readers) have my opinion on this topic. Have a nice day 😙

[brittle yew]

let’s say Hitler

oh boy, if we drag wartime into this, we’ll never even agree on a clear line as to what even counts as murder

but as for Hitler, allies intentionally left him alive, because as the saying goes, never intereupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake, because if Hitler was removed, someone more competent (Himmler) would take his place

[misty rover]

Idk, I don’t know that much about ww2, but Hitler was a good strategist, I think. Maybe not as good as Himmler admittedly, but Himmler would have maybe had a hard time to convince Germany to fight or something. Still, killing people like Hitler or Himmler seems like just “the good thing to do” morally, for the greater good.

[frail valley]

Hitler wasn't a good strategist

They lost the war

He led Germany to an unwinnable 2 front war

[fervent ridge]

isn’t he just an ideologue

[frail valley]

Yes

[fervent ridge]

the only military experience he had was serving as a soldier in ww1

but honestly everyone was so afraid of hitler that they ended up following his orders for a 2 front war

[frail valley]

The whole reason that the invasion into France went so well was basically luck

All of his generals advised him to follow the ww1 plan except one

Manstein said they should gamble and go through the ardennes

[fervent ridge]

and they hoped to knock out britain in the process after they blitzkrieg’d france…