Stand Your Ground Laws and Homicide Rates - Thesis Example

STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS AND HOMICIDE RATES This paper entails in depth discussions on stand your ground laws and the impacts of the law to homicide rates. Stand your ground law states that a person is justified to use force based on self-defense, without considering an obligation to retreat. This concept sometimes exists in statutory law and common law. Under these legal concerns, an individual is justified into using deadly force in some situations and “stand your grounds” law becomes a defense to civil suit. The literature review of this paper incorporates discussions of states, methodology, analysis, results and finally, conclusions on stand your ground law and the rate of homicide developments, since the creation of the law. Introduction It is true that stand your ground laws has greatly increased homicide rates across the globe. This is because of the claims made in self-defense, which encourages persons to use deadly force in defending themselves in case of dangerous attacks. Moreover, stand your ground laws has encouraged the use of firearms openly in bargain of self-defense. Since, 2005, eighteen states have legalized the right of self- defense by implementing the stand your ground law. The implementation of the law does not give the option of retreat once a person is attacked, but full use of firearms to deal with the dangerous situation in case of attack. Lawson (2012) argues that, despite fundamental implications that the law creates to public safety, there is little insight investigations on the impacts of these laws to victimization and crime. In this paper, examination of stand your ground laws which extend to the rights of self-defense has been explored based on the rates of homicide developments. The research of these laws has the results that stand your ground laws are associated with significant increase in the number of homicides especially white males. According to estimates, between 4.39 and 7.44 white males are killed every month since the implementation of these laws (Weaver, 2008). These developments give evidence that the law encourages homicide rates across the globe. Besides, finds raise concerns and arguments against the law, that it does not make America and other states across the globe safer. The purpose of this study is to find out if the implementation of these laws has significant developments in case of making nations safer or increases homicide rates across the globe. Some of research questions include, what are stand your ground laws, what the law create in terms of security, which are the states that use the law and finally, the importance of the law to general natives well being. This literature addresses the non-familiar impressions of the right to stand one’s ground against assaults, despite general duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. It introduces common law duty to retreat and the legal justification for the use of lethal force. Moreover, it addresses actual effects of stand your ground law in Florida, Nevada, Montana and New Hampshire. It introduces critical analysis of Trayvon Martin Killing discussions based on race and laws with the tale of male victim (Lawson, 2012). Additionally, issues that have risen with the law including license to kill, confusion with application of the law, encouraging citizens to stand your ground and laws that function with deterrent effects of the law has been extensively addressed in this literature. Besides, rational choice and theoretical perspectives and how it applies to stand your grounds laws are discussed in the literature. Finally, conclusions, recommendations and summary of stand your ground laws have been discussed in the literature. The need to develop legislatures on the purpose of clarifying and improving laws that benefit every citizen based on the legislations is crucial in the discussions of this paper. Literature Review: Common Law Duty to Retreat America experiences a large number of nonfatal injuries, nonfatal violent crimes and homicides committed with firearms. According to year 2000 statistics, firearms were involved in 66% based on homicides, 6% aggravated assaults, 8% of violent crime victims and 26% of robberies. All these were victims who faced attacks from individuals who were armed. Moreover, an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 persons get treated each year from nonfatal gunshot wounds. The rising number of injuries caused by the use of firearms is because of the implementation of the stand on your ground laws that cause excessive use of weapons that eventually leads to death and dangerous occurrences in some of the states, which legalize the use of firearms. Under no circumstances does the use of firearms and implementation of stand on your ground laws develop safety measures within states but increases the rates of homicide (Lawson, 2012). It is essential for states to take up retreat measures and pull back the law since it increases injuries and dangerous living. The use of firearms and any legal procedures should be left on the hands of police or law enforcement authorities to regulate crime related scenarios’ across the globe instead giving the responsibility to natives. Additionally, in the last decades, states enacted radical policies that address violence problems by making it easier for natives to carry concealed handguns in public places. The carrying and use of firearms openly was referred to as “shall-issue” or “right-to-carry” hidden firearms laws. The giving out of firearms was authorized by county authorities to carry concealed firearms has long as an individual satisfied certain objectives. These replaced laws gave local authorities a go head to deny permits. The permits that local authorities gave to individuals enabled majority of people to have guns and use them publicly. The use of the firearms openly contributed to wide range of homicide rates since majority of people used the firearms to attack anyone who seemed to pose danger at any time. Young adults are the most prone people to carry the firearms and use them anywhere to kill people who seem to pose some dangerous attitude towards them, friends and family. However, the firearms had some areas, which individuals were restricted not to carry their firearms in those areas. The restricted areas included places of nuisance like schools and courts. Moreover, the applicant needed to be 21years old, provide evidence of satisfactorily completed a gun safety program and finally, absence of felony convictions, no history of mental illness and records on the use of drugs. Although these restrictions were developed, it did not prevent persons from acquiring the firearms and using it for purposes of self-defense. In practice, applicants are infrequently denied permits. This is evident according to Florida’s department of state statistics (2003), which gives a report on the 837, 280 applicants that were received from October 1, 1987, through to February 28, 2003, only 3,914 or 0.47% were denied permits because of criminal history or incomplete application. This shows that it is next to impossible for the applicants to be denied permits to carry firearms around the states for their own private intentions based on self-defense. The use of the firearms promote murder cases especially in states like Florida and this poses dangerous living in the states and across the world. The murder cases increase since some of the young adults indulge in activities that are illegal like theft or use the firearms under the influence of alcohol. The need to regulate applicants in the use of the firearms is necessary to allow for an effective use of the weapons. States need to increase conditions for applicants and general use of the firearms to enable and regulate homicide rates in the states. Moreover, the age for acquiring the firearms need to be increased so that the rampant cases of young adults with the firearms is reduced and only responsible individuals with genuine reasons for the use of the firearms are given permits and allowed to carry them for their responsible duties (George & Frank,2006). Legal Justification for Use of Lethal Force Stand your ground laws is a contemporary extension of Right-To-Carry (RTC) concealed-handgun laws. However, there are legal justifications’ for use of lethal force and stand your ground laws that enable states and other authorities to allow applicants to use the guns for the purposes of preventing their own best interests through legal justifications. Those supporting these types of laws allow private natives to carry concealed handguns in public since they tend to believe it reduces violent crimes by deterring prospective criminals (Ren, Zhang & Zhao, 2012). Besides, armed criminals and other robbers are afraid to attack armed civilian since the civilians will be quick at firing them and sometimes causing death. The criminals are troubled in encountering armed civilians and hence this reduces chances of criminal developments across states and the globe. This action is legal justifications for use of lethal force, since it prevents civilians from harassments’ of criminals. It also protects innocent natives from their daily activities and duties. The legal justification is that the freedom of the natives is maintained and individuals protect unnecessary harassments from immoral individuals in their own capacity since they are able to protect themselves from criminals who might be having bad motives. However, critics of the law argue that the use of the firearms can develop violent altercations that finally turn deadly when more people are in possession of firearms (Ross, 2007). More questions have been raised to discuss whether the use of the guns helps in increasing or decreasing violent crimes across the globe. This is because of high number of people who use the firearms across the world and rise in the number of states who are legalizing the use of firearms across the earth. In contrast, these actions are protested against by natives who claim they pose the firearms for legal justifications of their own human rights and especially preventing themselves from the actions of armed criminals. It gives states a difficult time to try and control the use of firearms across the globe since the legal frame works for the use of the firearms overwhelm the need to withdraw the use of the firearms. Additionally, natives have recorded high number of criminal cases to the states with minimal success stories of arresting criminals and arraign them in courts. These accelerates inhabitants need to apply for the firearms and use them in controlling high cases of criminal interferences from their normal activities (Stephens, 2007). Founding fathers had the notion that people shall not be deprived of life, liberty and property. Since, the year 1971, majority of states ratified the bill of rights for the colonies and each state that comprised of United States; had the difficult task of defining this notion under any circumstances. The bill promotes that a person may use lethal force to protect his life, property and liberty. This notion encourages people to use stand your ground laws and allow the use of firearms to protect their property, liberty and life, through the full implementation of stand your grounds laws. The use of firearms in protecting property and life requires intense and critical care from criminals who will always want to destroy property and life for their own benefit. The implementation of the stand your ground laws allows people to use firearms and hence protecting their properties and allowing legal justification for use of lethal force to take effect in justice systems (George & Frank,2006). There are generally no disputes that deadly force may be used in self-defense to protect oneself from death and serious injuries. States disagree as to the circumstances for determining when a person is truly in danger of death or serious bodily injuries. This notion therefore accelerates a person to protect him or herself and instead kill his assailant in self-defense. Moreover, in the past the point that remained consistent and clear is that the defendant claim of self defense was accepted if he or she acted reasonable and in honest belief in imminent danger of grave bodily or death. Vast majority of jurisdictions require defendant to establish the following: (1) the defendant use of force was necessary (2) the defendant’s use of force was proportional to the aggressors use of force (3) the defendant only used force against an aggressor (4) the aggressors attack was imminent. When all these jurisdictions are satisfied, then the defendant is allowed to acquire a firearm and kill any aggressor who tends to interfere with the normal operations of an individual. One is allowed to use force and kill the aggressor to death since any attempt to let the aggressor free will contribute to an individual’s death in sacrifice of the aggressor (Stephens, 2007). The use of the stand your grand laws has then initiated the homicide rates to high levels since the aggressor are killed by defendants from any attempt of the aggressor to pose dangerous situation to the defendant. Today, legal scholars tend to focus debates of self-defense upon necessity and reasonableness of defendants actions. One of the most heated debates is weather the defendant needs to retreat to the wall before defending themselves with deadly force. The idea of retreating is the most difficult scenario that defendants will ever want in the quest to defend themselves from dangerous situations of criminals. The defendants will want to kill anyone who tends to pose danger in their paths; and this is the main reason for the increased homicide rates across the globe. Some states uphold a general duty to retreat and distinguish some exceptions. The most famous exception is that "if a person is attacked in his own dwelling or on his own premises, without any fault on his part, he need not retreat but may stand his ground and use such force as may be necessary to protect himself, even to the extent of killing his adversary. This exception is appropriately known as the "castle doctrine," as it stems from the notion that "ones home is ones castle (Drake, 2007). The theory is based on the premise that "if a person is bound to become a fugitive from her own home, there would be no refuge for her anywhere in the world. This literature does not scrutinize the castle doctrine in depth, but mentions it for further understanding of duty to retreat and Stand your ground Law. Drake (2007) argues that it should be renowned that all courts, inclusion of Supreme Court, follow the "castle doctrine”. This common law doctrine allows non-aggressor to use lethal force in his home when his life is in danger, and retreating in complete safety is possible. Courts have upheld the use of lethal force while in your home to protect yourself because it assumes that there is no safer place for the non-aggressor to flee to, than his own home. There is some debate among different jurisdictions as to how far the castle doctrine extends, for instance, a mobile home, an automobile, or ones own yard is considered a persons "castle." The importance of the castle doctrine, with respect to this Note, is that every jurisdiction allows a person to kill an intruder if that person is in his own home and reasonably believes his life is in danger (Drake, 2007). Florida Floridas self-defense law, before the new "Stand Your Ground" law was enacted, was a combination of statutory and common law (Catalfamo, 2006). An individual was justified to use deadly force in self-defense, if he or she reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Additionally, while states said nothing about duties to retreat, Florida common law established the duty to "retreat to the wall" when one is attacked in a place outside his or her home. Indeed, it had long been acknowledged that it is the duty of a party to avoid difficult believed to be imminent. Besides, a person may do so without apparently exposing himself to death or great bodily harm. Consequently, Case law continues to shape Floridas "castle doctrine" with exception of duty to retreat (Caltafamo, 2006). The law continues to make exceptions and amendments, although the judiciary had finally settled Floridas duty to retreat and "castle doctrine" laws, on October 1, 2005, its decisions became superseded. Florida developed a concept that law-abiding people should be able to protect themselves, their families, and others from intrusion and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others. Additionally, Sections 776.012 and 776.031 of the Florida Statutes were amended. The former, establishes the use of force as justifiable when used in defense of a person and includes the phrase “does not have a duty to retreat”, the latter, establishes the use of force as justice in defense of others and includes the sentence: "A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be." Moreover, a person may use deadly force in defense of self, under circumstances described in the newly amended section 776.012.218 hence; the duty to retreat has been abrogated in Florida. It was at this time that Florida abolished retreat and established the first implementation of Stand Your Ground Law (Jaffe, 2005). Nevada Nevada Supreme Court first addressed self defense in 1910 while operating on a case between State and Grimmett. In the case, Grimmet approached Baker and asked for $ 7.50, which baker owned him. Argument rose between them leading to a fight, which leads to Grimmett charges in court. In 1931, the Nevada Supreme Court clarified and distinguished its holding in Grimmett by requiring people who begin quarrels to attempt to retreat before killing another. Moreover, the Nevada Supreme Court has been operating on many cases that lead to a decision in 1950, where Nevada courts were beginning to adhere more closely to the principles of a duty to retreat jurisdiction. According to Bobo (2007) self-defense in Nevada originally developed under the common law, the Nevada Legislature has adopted a statute of self-defense, to protect victims from imminent death or great bodily harm. Nevada judges have interpreted the self-defense statute to mean that victims, or non-aggressors, need not to retreat from danger presented by an assailant, but instead have a right to kill their assailant. This view has become known as the no-retreat doctrine. The doctrine has many advantages, such as simple application; however, it does not clearly evaluate the necessity of killing a person because it does not require the non-aggressor to pursue other options to preserve his own life before killing his aggressor. Montana: New Hampshire Several studies letter that; weapon lethality may impact relationship between guns and homicides in the United States. Researchers assume that guns make the killing process easier and more impersonal with less sustained efforts, compared to knives or personal strength. Moreover, Gun attacks have a higher probability of killing the victim than knife attacks in otherwise similar circumstance. Death rate calculations of gun attacks was about five times higher than that of knife attacks, while some other studies indicate that the gun and knife wounding death rates were about four to one. Another important issue in the discussion of gun homicide is the users’ lethal intent. Scholars with strongly pro-control sentiments concede that on average those with more lethal intentions and greater willingness to harm others are more likely to choose dangerous weapons like guns, rather than knives in Montana Theoretical Perspective There are several theoretical explanations of why citizens choose to carry handguns, thus engage in firearm use. Over the past several decades, rational choice perspective has been applied to a wide variety of criminal behavior, including drunken driving, burglary, robbery, shoplifting, drug selling, and white-collar crime. In this paper, rational choice theory is used to support the hypotheses about the success, benefits, and costs of Stand Your Ground laws. Rational choice theory seem to be an appropriate theoretical perspective for understanding Stand Your Ground laws, given that law appears to include at least some consideration of risks and rewards (Ren, Zhang & Zhao, 2012). Rational Choice Theory Rational choice theory, also known as choice theory, is a theory for understanding and often modeling social, economic, and individual behavior. It is the main archetype in the current-dominant microeconomics school of thought. Besides, it is central to modern political science, as well as other disciplines, such as sociology and philosophy. Rationality defined by rational choice theory adopts a more specific and narrower definition that simply means individual acts as balancing cost against benefits at an action that maximizes personal advantage. Ross (2007) records that rational choice theory was early popularized by a 1992 Nobel Memorial Prize Laureate in Economic Science, Gary Becker, who was one of the first to apply rational actor models more widely. Additionally, the essence of rational choice theory states that, when faced with several courses of action, people do what they believe is likely to have the best overall outcome. Sociologists and political scientists have tried to build theories around the idea that all action is fundamentally “rational” in character, and that people calculate the likely costs and benefits of any action before deciding on an action. What distinguishes rational choice theory from these other forms of theory is that it denies the existence of any kinds of action other than the purely rational and calculative. A rational choice approach to Stand Your Ground laws maintains that laws might increase violence, especially homicide rates. Analysis and Results of Stand Your Ground Laws and Homicide Rates Although, there is a great deal of research on the prevalence of firearms and homicides, there is very little empirical testing of the relationship between the rational choice perspective and gun ownership. The use of firearms and stand your ground laws need to be allowed only for the protection of an individual. The use of the firearms needs to be allowed in states where crime rates have gone high to protect individuals from attacks by criminals (Ren, Zhang & Zhao, 2012). Additionally, the use of firearms needs to be allowed only to the applicants who have genuine reasons for the possession of the firearms to reduce rates of homicide. Conclusion Regardless of the specific theoretical argument researchers employ, all previous research emphasizes a relationship between gun availability and violence. However, it should be clear that not everyone agrees on the direction of this relationship. The use of firearms needs to be allowed only to genuine natives who have the best reasons for having the firearms, Such as protecting themselves. Consequently, Advocates of Stand Your Ground laws argue the laws are necessary to ensure that individuals have the full freedom of self-defense in situations in which they are attacked outside their home. They submit that these laws provide a deterrent benefit, because criminals will fear victims who are willing to use deadly force to protect themselves. Reference Bobo, J. W. (2007). Following the Trend: Alabama Abandons the Duty to Retreat and Encourages Citizens to Stand Their Ground.Cumb. L. Rev., 38, 339. Catalfamo, C. (2006). Stand Your Ground: Floridas Castle Doctrine for the Twenty-First Century.Rutgers JL & Pub.Poly, 4, 504. Drake, D. M. (2007). Castle Doctrine: An Expanding Right to Stand Your Ground, The. . Marys LJ, 39, 573. Jaffe, M. (2005). Up in Arms over Floridas New Stand Your Ground Law. Nova L. Rev., 30, 155. George.J.,Benston & Frank.J.,Vandall(2006): Legal Control Over The Supply Of Handguns:An Analysis Of The Issues, With Particular Attention To The Law And Economics Of The Hamilton V. Berretta Lawsuit Against Handgun Manufacturers,26 PACE.L. REV. 305,341 Lawson, T. F. (2012). Fresh Cut in an Old Wound-A Critical Analysis of the Trayvon Martin Killing: The Public Outcry, the Prosecutors Discretion, and the Stand Your Ground Law Ren, L., Zhang, Y., & Zhao, J. S. (2012). The Deterrent Effect of the Castle Doctrine Law on Burglary in Texas: A Tale of Outcomes in Houston and Dallas. Crime & Delinquency, 0011128712466886. Ross, L. P. (2007). Transmogrification of Self-Defense by national Rifle Association-Inspired Statutes: From the Doctrine of Retreat to the Right to Stand Your Ground. SUL Rev., 35 Stephens, R. (2007). Life and liberty: Seven factors that will better evaluate self-defense in Nevadas common law on retreat.Nev. LJ, 8, 649 Weaver, Z. L. (2008). Floridas Stand Your Ground Law: The Actual Effects and the Need for Clarification.U. Miami L. Rev., 63, 395 Read More