What is the Castle Doctrine?

In the US, there were increased cases where intruders assaulted people in their homes and harmed them as well as stealing their properties. These cases left the citizens scared and felt unprotected, and thus the government developed the castle doctrine so that the people could defend themselves. According to the American self-defense law, citizens are supposed to retreat from their properties under any danger to protect their safety to avoid being injured before resorting to using force (Shenoy, 2019). Before this law, people were used to retreating from their homes when attacked. However, the government came up with the castle doctrine, permitting individuals to use force under any attack in his or her home. This doctrine has been adopted in most parts of the United States of America. It allows. This paper presents an evaluation of the castle doctrine benefits along with its flaws. The castle doctrine, also known as defense of habitation law or castle law, is a legal law that designates an individual's abode or any legally occupied area as the place where one contains protection and immunity, allowing that individual to apply force under threat circumstances (Shenoy, 2019). The law seeks to protect oneself against the danger and be free from legal prosecutions due to the consequences of using force. The Castle Doctrine is similar to the" Stand your ground" but is limited to real property, which includes individuals' homes, cars, or workplaces (Jansen & Nugent-Borakove, 2016). Castle Doctrine brings out the concept that people have the right to be secure and safe within their homes. It still states that to be safe, an individual does not have to withdraw from his or her home or castle. Depending on the state, people may be granted the right to protect themselves and their families, their properties, and the entire community by force whereby they are permitted to apply deadly force against the intruders who seek to harm them without retreating. The castle doctrine permits people to protect themselves and their properties from intruders using force and provides immunity from legal prosecutions due to the consequences of using force. On one side, in a situation where law enforcement cannot arrive fast enough to save the victim from a threat, this legislation permits people to apply force to eliminate the danger, thus preventing themselves from being hurt or their properties getting stolen. According to Shenoy (2019), the castle doctrine is very fundamental to the citizens, especially the poor African-American staying in high-crime urban areas. In such areas, the legislation makes it easier for them to protect themselves under the absence of police enforcement. On the other side, it eliminates problems that come with a duty to retreat. If a person harms any intruder within his or her property parameter, this legislation protects that particular person from being hurt by the common law, which requires people to retreat when attacked. Therefore, the castle doctrine removes the requirement to retreat because withdrawing from a threat may lead to property loss during the robbery, injury, or even death due to a lack of self-defense. Before the castle doctrine was developed, the prosecutors could sometimes go after the victims who were only defending themselves. The prosecutors could argue that the victim did not retreat far enough to meet the legal statute for their actions since the legal standards sometimes could be that the victim had turned his or her back to the assailant. The legislation has led to reduced crime rates (Shenoy, 2019). Since everyone is allowed for self-defense, many citizens applied for guns, which they can use during self-defense. Therefore, the aggressors have feared attacking people in their homes since they know the probability of being harmed or killed is high. Before the implementation of the castle doctrine, people used to retreat from their homes when a threat is detected, thus giving the intruders enough time to steal other people's properties without the owners retaliating those attacks. But after the implementation of this law, people now have the right to apply force to terminate any threat. Thus this legislation dissuades the intruders from attacking people in their homes. It also removes ambiguity from the castle doctrine standards. If an intruder attacks people in their homes, then the law permits them to protect themselves and their families by all means. As per the standard requirement, anyone engaging in any criminal activity does not have a defense to stand on even if it is self-protection, because it is regarded as an illegal activity. However, as per the castle doctrine, the self-defense mechanism permits a legal justification for a murder done as a survival instinct, thus making criminals fear attacking people within their premises. It provides unfettered power and discretion to people, thus leading to violent crimes. Using this legislation, individuals can kill anyone within their homes and pretend that it was self-defense. Therefore, the castle doctrine makes it easier for an individual to murder others and escape the legal penalties. For instance, in 2018, according to Shenoy (2019), an American named Michael Drejka pursued, shot, and killed a man in Pinellas County. Following this crime, the sheriff of the area failed to arrest Michael because of the stand your ground law. It removes the deterrents which may be available for any firearm-related homicide. One may pretend to be having self-defense, yet he or she is the one who started the fight, and yet the right of Stand-Your-Ground favors them. Through this legislation, criminals can get their guns in the name of the self-defense system and use them to hurt others, thus increasing the crime rate in the country. Therefore, the castle doctrine helps the prosecutor to use the law to get criminals free incorrectly. The legislation only focuses on not retreating from a threat in the context of legal self-defense, but it does not specify the amount of force on should apply to a specific degree of danger (Shenoy 2019). For example, one may punch someone down within his or her home yet respond by shooting the attacker to death. This law does not meet both parties' rights basing on the proportionality of the crime and the consequences. It also goes against the common law. The castle doctrine permits those who feel a reasonable threat to their lives, families, and properties to "meet force by force" and not running away (Jansen & Nugent-Borakove 2016). According to the common law, it emphasizes on duty to retreat whereby the self-defense is regarded as invalid if the defendant had the opportunity to withdraw from the threat safely. However, the castle doctrine is an exception to the 'duty to retreat' as it denies/limits the common law the mandate to exercise its power. Thus, this doctrine brings confusion as it goes against the common law in the context of self-defense, and it does not specify the amount of force on should apply to a specific degree of threat. In conclusion, the castle doctrine is a legal law that allows a person to have self-defense actions without retreating. It gives people the power to use force to get rid of any threat jeopardizing their lives and properties and be free from any legal prosecutions. The implementation of this legislation has led to some merits and demerits on how individuals handle crimes. The castle doctrine further permits people to protect themselves from the commission of a crime, especially when the police cannot arrive fast to rescue the victim. Also, due to the castle doctrine, the crime rate has the probability of reducing since the criminals will fear being attacked by the property owners. On the other end, the shortcomings of this doctrine include, primarily, the aspect of not retreating from a threat in the context of legal self-defense. Still, it does not specify the amount of force on should apply to a specific degree of danger. Lastly, it has led to criminals getting away without facing the legal penalties in the name of self-defense. 

References 

Jansen, S., & Nugent-Borakove, M. E. (2016). Expansions to the castle doctrine: Implications for policy and practice. 

Shenoy, A. G. (2019). The impact of the Castle Doctrine on crime rates in Texas: policy recommendations and public health implications.  Health Education & Behavior , 1090198119873959.