Stand Your Ground Laws

The “Stand-your-ground” Law

The “Stand-your-ground” law has varied nomenclature such as “line-in-the-sand” and “no duty to retreat” among several others all of which express a particular aspect of legislation involving personal defense. The law justifies a person’s attempt or use of deadly force to protect themselves as long as they have a right to be there. Essentially, a person is legally justified in using force in response to apparent threats to themselves or others in order to prevent unlawful intrusion as well as attack. This law has been at the heart of numerous criminal cases in the United States and has been selectively adopted by each of the states of the Union.

Background

Self-defense is innate and as such, the law should seem almost as old as law itself. However, this law has not been in use until the last two or so decades. Prior to that, English law that still held much influence in most western jurisdictions dictated on the sanctity of human life. As a result, people were required to retreat during times of peril and taking life was criminal (Maharaj 36). The doctrine is referred to as castle doctrine and is still practiced in some states. It is from whence that the initial seeds of “stand your ground” law began to sprout. Within the walls of their homes, people were allowed to use force to prevent intrusion and this was further aggravated by the development of better, cheaper, faster-loading guns that made personal protection evolve even beyond the confines of personal property in some States. The laws have, as a result, taken centre stage in various debates concerning gun violence and legislation in many states of the United States (Franks 17).

Legal Practice

This doctrine has graced courtrooms in the United States and has seen increased use over the last decade following particular instances in criminal cases where defendants invoked this right. Well over half of the states of the United States have instituted “Stand your ground” laws in their legislation and seven have adopted the law by means of jurisprudence or other means. These are Colorado, California, New Mexico, Ohio, Illinois, Washington and North Dakota. Furthermore, Florida and Georgia are among states that seek to expand the law to justify pointing a gun at someone or firing in self-defense. This would mean a person may justifiably invoke the right without any knowledge of the scope of the law. Other states limit this law to a person’s home and vehicle as well as place of business which is a variation of Castle Doctrine while other states still require people to perform their duty to retreat in the face of an imminent threat, danger or intrusion (Butz 360).

Research and Controversy

Research has indicated that “stand your ground” laws and their adoption moderately increases homicide levels though not necessarily firearm homicides. In fact, little evidence suggests the laws increase the occurrence of firearm homicides. The state department of Florida has come out in defense of the laws stating that the impact of its adoption has been reduced homicide and crime levels. These facts are, however, disputed by a number of research bodies that claim that crime levels have increased to over five hundred homicides a year as a direct result of “Stand your ground” laws across the United States. This is in contrast with other research that states that homicide and general crime levels have reduced or even not changed at all in particular states such as Texas, Colorado, and Oklahoma since the adoption and publication of these laws.

The implications of the “Stand your ground” laws bring with it plenty of controversies as has been the case over the last few years. Critics have fronted their concerns that the law is a “shoot first” policy that denies a potential victim any benefit of the doubt and may result in unfortunate and unnecessary injury or death. This argument has been at the heart of debates and policies ultimately aimed at ending gun violence. In addition, they argue that perpetrators will claim self-defense as a result of the rights afforded by the law to them. They will argue that they felt threatened and acted in response to the threat. In such scenarios, it becomes difficult to ascertain the complete truth as the only other reliable witness may be the deceased (McLellan and Erdal 14). Indeed, this has been the case in states such as Florida where self-defense claims increased significantly after the enactment of the legislation. Gun control has been a key issue associated with the law as a result of the many crimes that involve firearms. Most debates concerning gun control, however, fail to address the issue of personal security in the wake of ever-expanding technology that provides both law-abiding citizens and criminals with vast options when it comes to guns.

There is also an arising issue concerning racial bias as regards the law of “stand your ground”. Studies have shown that white people are more successful against blacks in cases where “stand your ground” laws and rights were invoked than black people against whites in similar conditions. Concurrently, studies have shown that black attackers are more likely to be armed and involved in crime than white people. Despite this apparent disparity, conviction rates compiled for states such as Florida suggest that whites are convicted of such crimes at a relatively equal rate as black offenders. As such, the law has come under fire over the apparent unequal treatment and application of vindication for white-on-black homicides as well as black-on-white homicides (Lee 23). With native Americans, the case is different as tribe/reservation law comes into effect. Within the confines of the reservation, self-defense is justifiable in tribal court but not necessarily in a federal court. Additionally, non-Indian offenders cannot be arrested or prosecuted in a Native American court for crimes they commit within a reservation. This is contradictory to the essence of “Stand your ground” law granting a person the right to defend themselves at their home or place of work.

Conclusion

The “Stand your ground” law is a controversial yet apparently necessary legal policy that has since transformed the realm of traditional self-defense dogma. The law affords a person the right to use deadly force to protect themselves, others, and their property from apparent danger. The law has been adopted in various forms across the United States and has been the subject of numerous judicial, legislative, and socio-political debates since. “Stand your ground” law likewise affects various initiatives and aspects of society such as gun violence and vigilantism with varied effects on the said practices. The law of no duty to retreat has also been the question of many debates surrounding racial bigotry and the influence of the law on the outcome of the judicial process.

Works cited

Butz, Adam M., Michael P. Fix, and Joshua L. Mitchell. “Policy Learning and the Diffusion of Stand‐Your‐Ground Laws.” Politics & Policy 43.3 (2015): 347-377.

Franks, Mary Anne. ”Safety, Self-Defence, and Stand Your Ground Laws.” (2016).

Lee, Marcus Alexander. ”Originating Stand Your Ground: Race, Criminal Justice, and Neoliberal Reason.” (2017).

Maharaj, Sherika. ”Knock out! Stand your ground or self-defence? feature.” De Rebus 2015.549 (2015): 36-37.

McClellan, Chandler, and Erdal Tekin. ”Stand your ground laws, homicides, and injuries.” Journal of human resources (2016): 0613-5723R2.