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 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 to 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.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Law
McClellan and Tekin (2012) stated 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 having the right to be. American citizens are given the right to use deadly force if they reasonably believe that the threats expose them to severe injuries or death.
However, the rights given by the stand your ground law can ostensibly suffer certain limitations if it is proven that the defendant was 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 use deadly force. 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).
Understanding self-defense laws in the US requires a proper appreciation of the provisions of the Castle Doctrine. According to the statute, a person can justifiably utilize force as a means of self-defense when they reasonably believe that that they face unlawful threat without necessarily viewing retreat as an option. Between 2004 and 2009, 24 states enacted the Stand Your Ground Laws in a bid to extend the Castle Doctrine to make self-defense possible including outside the home (Yu, 2014). Although the Stand Your Ground policies make it easier to use lethal force, ambiguity remains on its impact on the social security. Many bodies of research have attempted to find out the effect of the Stand Your Grand statutes on the reduction of violent crimes and homicides. Studies have revealed that the laws have a positive impact on crime reduction especially the violent ones to a rate of 3.5% (Yu, 2014).
The stand your ground law is consistent with the castle doctrine which asserts that a person has no duty to retreat while in their residence 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. It is important to understand 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 including Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, and Indiana amongst others. Although, several individual states such as Ohio, North Dakota, and Wisconsin have enacted the same statutes but only limit it to use in the vehicle (Ward, 2014).
Though, the law is marred with specific controversies that have led to mixed reactions 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 United States. 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, emanates from the principle 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). Upon further investigation, law enforcement charged Zimmerman with manslaughter. 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). 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 jeopardized their safety or life. It is important to note that the force used as defined by the law includes that which can cause bodily harm or even death as seen in the Zimmerman case. However, the force must only be necessary to prevent the harm or death from the imminent attack.
Stand your ground doctrine has two fundamental beliefs 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 belief analyzed in a trial would be to establish the use of force 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 imply 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 death.
Leverick's asserts that the essential human right is the right to life. She states that 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. Thus, killing is permissible in self-defense because it aims at protecting the most fundamental right. Leverick further suggest 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.
There is a common argument fronted among the supporters of the Second Amendment laws. It asserts that the interpretation of the Second Amendment should be tied to the right to self-defense and possible attack from others (Kairys, 2012). However, the grey area remains the definition of the source of the danger. Supporters of the gun laws opine that the source of the threat should emanate from mentally ill people, criminals, and youths. Others feel that violent political movements are a viable source of a threat with some citing the minorities especially the black people. However, this has since been viewed as racist sentiments that can only serve to divide the country. However, Blau, Gorry, & Wade, (2016) asserted that activists and scholars have intimated that the gun rights should be viewed as a way of giving the citizens self-defense against an oppressive government. Therefore, they consider the Second Amendment rights as a way of protecting the Americans from a rogue federal government and the military (Kairys, 2012).
In assessing the American society, it remains evident that the blacks are at the most risk when it comes to gun violence. Therefore, a fundamental question that should form the basis of gun regulation is whether it denies the citizens the right to self-defense. Most anti-regulation scholars, therefore, assert that limiting the possession of guns does more harm than good because it jeopardizes the people’s right to self-defense. Kairys (2012) contended that opponents of gun regulation, therefore, view it as counterproductive to the Stand Your Ground statutes which provide individuals the right to resist deadly force without necessarily opting for retreating. Self-defense laws such as those offered by the Stand Your Grand policies require more definition especially in the wake of the ever-increasing gun regulations. Most importantly, more emphasis should be put on defining the source of the danger in a bid to avoid the unnecessary loopholes that exist within the statutes.
Anti-domestic violence activists have called on states such as Florida to clearly define the law because it has the potential of protecting domestic abusers. A person guilty of a crime can easily cite the Stand Your Ground Laws as a basis of defense, and this could easily lead to an acquittal of a domestic abuse perpetrator. The solution, therefore, is strengthening the law to ensure that it provides a rationale where defendants do not take advantage to perpetrate violence against others.
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.
Ward (2014) found research conducted by the Tampa Bay Times which 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. 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.
Counter-argument and rebuttal
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 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. Although, 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 American 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.
The most critical thing to note in this scenario is the deterrence effect that the Stand Your Ground Laws have on potential criminals. Defendants are provided with the power to use lethal force as retaliation against any threat they perceive to be dangerous to their well-being. On a positive note, potential criminals will likely deter from engaging in criminal activity because they know that citizens are protected by the law to use any means possible for protection, without necessarily retreating. Even though studies can scientifically prove this, it also remains evident that the Stand Your Ground Laws has increased violence rates especially in the wake of many confusions and ambiguity as to when and how to use it. The Zimmerman case is a classic example of how these laws can result in increased violence especially when vital aspects such as the source of the threat, nature of the danger, and the legitimacy of the "reasonable" belief are not adequately defined.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the stand your ground statute attempts to provide citizens with the right to protect their safety and life when 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(s). The law has received widespread criticism and praise in equal measures with supporters for giving citizens the independence to protect their lives.
On the other hand, critics have proclaimed 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. Nevertheless, 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
Blau, B. M., Gorry, D. H., & Wade, C. (2016). Guns, laws and public shootings in the United States. Applied Economics , 48 (49), 4732-4746.
Grabczynska, A., & Ferzan, K. K. (2009). Justifying killing in self-defense. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 99 (1), p.235.
Kairys, D. (2012). Self-Defense and Gun Regulation for All. Conn. L. Rev. , 45 , 1669.
Kautzer, C. (2015). Good guys with guns: From popular sovereignty to self-defensive subjectivity. Law and Critique , 26 (2), pp.173-187.
Lave, T. R. (2012). Shoot to kill: A critical look at stand your ground laws. University of Miami Law Review , 67 (827).
McClellan, C. B., & Tekin, E. (2012). Stand your ground laws, homicides, and injuries . Journal of Human Resources, 52 (3), pp.621-653.
Megale, E. B. (2013). Disaster unaverted: Reconciling the desire for a safe and secure state with the grim realities of stand your ground. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 37 (2), pp.255-314.
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. American Journal of Criminal Law , 42 (2) , pp.89-189.
Yu, Y. (2014). Deterrence effects of stand your ground law on crime in Eastern US states. Atlantic Economic Journal , 42 (1), 119.
