The Castle Doctrine hails from the idea that an individual is entitled to security in his home. The law seeks to address the question of whether or not one has a legal justification to use deadly means to defend oneself when invaded by an intruder. The person being attacked should, however, not be the initial aggressor. The individual should also be free of any kind of provocation and has to come out of the situation clean hands. Different states express different versions of the law with some states allowing the use of lethal means in more situations than others. States such as Pennsylvania, for instance, has extensive permits allowing citizens to use lethal means to defend themselves in several scenarios. For some states, however, if there is a chance for the attacked individual to sneak out of their homes safely, then they should do so instead of using deadly force for self-defense.
In my view, there are several notable moments where this law has not been about partisanship and politics. However, I believe that the idea behind the paradigm of self-defense is so entrenched in the vectors of power which reinforce the existence of power rather than address the issue of inequality. The long history of the use of lethal force for self-defense in the United States is steeped in some kind of system of power which aims at concentrating power to those who already have it. It is my view that people should critical and analytical with them even as they engage in discussions on the use of deadly force for self-defense. While many people who own guns have some personal values and are good people, some few elements take advantage of the law to execute homicide.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The use of guns for self-defense is quite a common thing in the United States. With the issues of politics and insecurities, however, the castle doctrine laws may be used by many individuals to commit homicide and use the same law for justification. Laws are made by humans to help find a standing point between freedom and collective needs. This paper determines that beyond the potential for abuse, there is also the question of morality which is more valuable than the property. The moralists argue that it is worth protecting life more than property. Someone who breaks into another person's house may have a reason for doing so even if, not a valid reason. It may not be morally right to kill such a person at the first sight while fleeing or after surrendering. Killing an individual may sound easy but in reality, it is a much difficult issue which affects one's life on earth.
The effectiveness of the castle doctrine law and its deterrent effect on crime continue to raise heated debate in the society. The castle doctrine law has not proven to be having a significant deterrent effect even after many states adopted the law. As a matter of fact, many studies have proven that the castle doctrine law has led to an increased number of crimes. Many citizens have continued to abuse this law to carry out homicide and justify their heinous acts using this law. In self-defense, the burden of proof of the facts is not as challenging as that of justifying a homicide. For one to justify homicide, one has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the intruder had the intentions of committing a felony or violence. Unless someone's life is truly in danger, using deadly means to attack an individual is not necessary. Killing should never be put in the first plan; rather it should come as the last resort.
