The Stand Your Ground Laws state that under any specific circumstance, a person can utilize force as a means of defense without first attempting to retreat as an option of evading the impending danger. The laws were purposely created to remove the possibility of any confusion regarding the liberty of people to defend themselves and also to acquit people who lawfully used self-defense although they did not consider using retreat as an option of avoiding the threat. Many states provide self-defense under the Stand Your Ground Laws which offer an individual immunity from prosecution as opposed to using the affirmative defense. However, in the wake of the shooting incident involving Trayvon Martin in Florida, more attention has been shifted to the laws as people increasingly question the wisdom around them. Even though a section of people contend that these laws are necessary because they ensure defense against possible perpetrators, they are marred by a lot of confusion that has led to calls for their repeal. The Stand Your Ground Laws should be defined throughout the United States because innocent people have a right to protect themselves from harm without fear of repercussions.
Reason
The crime rates in America continue to increase. The average American person is therefore left vulnerable to be prosecuted by the same law that aims at protecting the good citizens. Thus, the Stand Your Ground laws focus on protecting those citizens who might engage in potentially criminal activities aimed at protecting their safety and lives. It is almost impossible to discuss the Stand Your Ground statute without necessarily illuminating another law referred to as the Duty to Retreat. Megale (2013) noted that the rule provides that any person under an imminent threat must first consider retreating from the danger before employing any potential aggressive behavior. States such as Iowa, Hawaii, and the New York adhere to the provisions of this statute. However, the Stand Your Ground is a revocation of the Duty to Retreat Statute. Through the law, citizens have the liberty to use force as a means of protection before considering retreating as an option. Therefore, instead of presenting an affirmative defense, one can use the Stand Your Ground statute in a bid to avoid trial (Portero, 2012). Another important reason for the law is that it gives the citizens an opportunity to not only protect their lives but also prevent felonious activities from happening such as kidnapping, burglary, and rape amongst others. Therefore, in essence, the law enhances the preservation of human life and also ensures that innocent citizens are given the autonomy to protect their lives.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Law
McClellan and Tekin (2012) noted that the Stand Your Ground Law is a form of justification in criminal cases where the defendants have the right to use force without retreating when met with threats or even perceived threats. The law draws from the fact that an individual has no duty to retreat from a place where they are legitimately or lawfully right to be. The citizens are given the right to use the force if they reasonably believe that the threats expose them to severe injuries or death. However, the rights accorded by the Stand Your Ground law can ostensibly suffer certain limitations if it is proved that the defendant as engaging in any illegal activities. A similar scenario can occur even if the defendant engaged in unlawful conduct that had nothing to do with the perceived threat that led to the deadly violence. An example to show where the Stand Your Ground law would not apply could be in a situation where a person uses an illegally acquired weapon as a tool for self-defense to avoid getting robbed (McClellan, & Tekin, 2012).
The Stand Your Ground law is consistent with the castle doctrine which asserts that a person has no duty to retreat while in their residents and can, therefore, use reasonable or deadly force to defend people or property. The Stand Your Ground and castle doctrines can both be used in defending a person charged with criminal homicide. Important to understand is that the self-defense claims become invalid if the defendant safely retreated from the perceived danger, which is tantamount to acting in accordance with the duty to retreat. In the United States, some of the states that have successfully adopted the Stand Your Ground laws include Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, and Indiana amongst others. However, individual states have enacted the statutes but only limit it to use in the vehicle include Ohio, North Dakota, and Wisconsin (Ward, 2014).
However, the law is marred with specific controversies that have led to mixed reactions about it from various quarters. Two laws including the Stand Your Ground and Retreat rules have led to massive confusions although they share common-law histories in the US. States such as Florida took steps to repeal the Retreat rule and replaced them with the Stand Your Ground Statute effective from 2005 (Megale, 2013). The statute has two critical provisions with one stating that a person does not have the duty to retreat whatsoever when they are not the initial aggressor. Secondly, an individual is regarded to be in imminent danger of death or harm when confronting an intruder. The controversy with this law, therefore, emanates from the first tenet which provides a person the power to stand and fight. When George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin in Florida, Zimmerman asserted that he had acted in self-defense, something that the police initially accepted (Portero, 2012). However, the further investigation prompted the police to press charges of manslaughter against Zimmerman. According to the accounts provided by Zimmerman, there was no possible room for retreating as is required in any Stand Your Ground defense (McClellan, & Tekin, 2012). However, the jury insisted on arguing the case through the lenses of Stand Your Grand statute as opposed to the affirmative defense hence showing the immense amount of confusion surrounding the application of the law. In the wake of these controversies, it remains critically vital to highlight specific essential characteristics of the law such as the use of force and self-defense.
Use of Force
The Stand Your Ground law explicitly provides that an individual can utilize deadly force against an aggressor after reasonably believing that their life is under threat. Kautzer (2015) illustrated that the use of force is therefore justifiable when an individual has enough reasons to think that the use of unlawful force would cause jeopardize their safety or life. Important to note is that the force used as provided by the law includes that which can cause bodily harm or even death as in the case of Zimmerman. However, the force must only be necessary to prevent the harm or death from the imminent attack. The Stand Your Ground doctrine has two fundamental tenets that could guide the use of force in such circumstances. During the trial process, the "initial aggressor" rule will be vital in sanctifying the use of force. The person who acts provocatively to trigger the threat is known as the "initial aggressor." As such, the use of force is legally allowed to a person deemed to have received a threat from the initial aggressor (Portero, 2012). The second vital tenet analyzed in a trial to ascertain the use of force is reasonableness as opposed to accuracy. The court would only require proof from the defendant that they had reasonable belief that the aggressor posed a threat to their life or safety. The belief, however, does not need to be accurate, and this is well covered in the law hence further building on its controversy.
Self-Defense
Several theories have been fronted to explain the need for self-defense when confronted with a Stand Your Ground situation. Grabczynska and Ferzan (2009) asserted that the consequentialist account intimates that self-defense is vital because it is the lesser evil. It emphasizes that it is much better to kill the aggressor than the aggressor killing the defendant. Another proposal fronted by the right-based views asserts that people have the right to life. Furthermore, it stresses that people have the innate right not to be killed. As such, defenders must have the opportunity to use any force whatsoever to prevent their extinction. Leverick's argument provides a clear basis on which people should enjoy their rights to life. She asserts that the essential human right is the right to life. It is superior to the others because it offers a foundation for the enjoyment of other rights and secondly, its violation, unlike the others, is irreparable. Therefore, killing is permissible in self-defense because it aims at protecting the most fundamental right. Leverick further intimates that killing an aggressor is justifiable because, through the actions of the aggressors, they fundamentally forfeit their right to life (Grabczynska, & Ferzan, 2009). Therefore self-defense should be defended by the law as it emphasizes the individual’s right to live and also gives the citizens the autonomy to protect their lives.
Statistics
It would be critical to note that acquittals on the basis of self-defense are rare. Data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) indicated that in 2010, a paltry 2.57% of the homicides were regarded as justifiable (Ward, 2014). Between 2006 and 2010 the justifiable homicides that utilized firearms amounted to 1031 which represented an average of 200 per year (Ward, 2014). Therefore, this does not mean that the Stand Your Ground laws are not essential, but the reality is that their impact in the lives of the Americans is less significant than usually portrayed by the media. Suggestions have also been made that the Stand Your Ground laws are discriminative on the basis of race. Research conducted by the Tampa Bay Times compiled a list of 192 homicide incidences and attempted to analyze their outcomes in light of race. The study found out significant discrepancies in how victims were treated in respect to the racial backgrounds. For instance, the data showed that suspects who killed a black person received acquittal 73% of the time while the rate was at 59% when a white person was killed (Ward, 2014). Therefore, this data debunks the myth that race plays a role in the application of the Stand Your Ground Laws. In fatal cases, black defendants showed a 66% probability of walking free as compared to 61% of the whites (Ward, 2014).
In conclusion, the Stand Your Ground statute attempts to provide citizens with the right to protect their right to safety and life while confronted with a threatening situation without facing any criminal charges. The law replaced the Retreat rule which preferentially asks citizens to consider retreating before taking any significant aggressive action. The law has received widespread criticism and praise in equal measures with proponents hailing them for giving citizens the autonomy to protect their lives. On the other hand, critics have intimated that it has many confusions, promotes violence, and not even the jury have recently shown proper understanding as seen in the Zimmerman shooting case in Florida. However, since innocent people have the right to protection from harm, it remains incumbent upon the lawmakers to define the law appropriately to avoid the controversies.
References
Grabczynska, A., & Ferzan, K. K. (2009). Justifying Killing in Self-Defence.
Kautzer, C. (2015). Good Guys with Guns: From Popular Sovereignty to Self-Defensive Subjectivity. Law and Critique , 26 (2), 173-187.
Lave, T. R. (2012). Shoot to Kill: A Critical Look at Stand Your Ground Laws. U. Miami L. Rev. , 67 , 827.
McClellan, C. B., & Tekin, E. (2012). Stand your ground laws, homicides, and injuries (No. w18187). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Megale, E. B. (2013). Disaster Unaverted: Reconciling the Desire for a Safe and Secure State with the Grim Realities of Stand Your Ground. Am. J. Trial Advoc. 37 , 255.
Portero, A. (2012). Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground ‘Law: 5 Things to Know. International Business Times .
Ward, C. V. (2014). Stand Your Ground and Self-Defense. Am. J. Crim. L. , 42 , 89.
