A 2018 review of existing research by the RAND Corporation concluded that "there is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws can increase homicide rates, and limited evidence that laws specifically increase gun homicides." [3] In 2019, the RAND authors published an update, writing: "Since the publication of the RAND report, at least four additional studies meeting RAND`s rigorous standards have reinforced the conclusion that Stand Your Ground laws increase homicides. None of them found that "Stand Your Ground" laws deter violent crime. No rigorous study has yet determined whether "Stand Your Ground" laws encourage legitimate acts of self-defense. [4] The common law principle of the "castle doctrine" states that individuals have the right to use appropriate force, including lethal force, to protect themselves from an intruder in their home. This principle has been codified and extended by state legislators. At least three others have since added "Stand Your Ground" as law: Ohio, Arkansas and North Dakota. Even retreating states generally follow the "castle doctrine," according to which people have no obligation to retreat if attacked in their homes or (in some states) in their vehicles or workplaces. The castle doctrine and stand-your-ground laws provide legal defense to those accused of various violent crimes against individuals, such as murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault and illegal unloading or arming of weapons, as well as attempts to commit such crimes. [2] Here is a selection of cases that highlight the legal, racial and gender dynamics involved in the development of Stand Your Ground: In general, "Stand Your Ground" laws allow people to respond to threats or violence without fear of prosecution wherever a person has the right to be.
Eight states (California, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, Vermont and Washington) authorize the use of lethal force in self-defense by court orders or jury orders. A 2012 study examined whether a major shooting at Stand Your Ground, Joe Horn in 2007, which drew public attention to Texas` Stand-Your-Ground Act, influenced crime. The study found that after the shooting, burglaries in Houston, but not Dallas, dropped significantly over a 20-month period. [48] A 2015 study found that the introduction of Oklahoma`s stand-your-ground law was associated with a decrease in residential burglaries, but also that the law "had the unintended consequence of increasing the number of non-residential burglaries." [49] In Canada, there is no legal obligation to opt out. Canada`s self-defence laws are similar to those of England in that they focus on what was done and whether it was considered appropriate in the circumstances. In general, when withdrawal is possible in the circumstances, the decision to assert oneself is rather unreasonable. The sections of the Canadian Criminal Code dealing with self-defence or defence of property are sections 34 and 35,[52] respectively. These sections were updated in 2012 to clarify the code and help lawyers apply the law in accordance with values that Canadians find acceptable. "At the heart of these `shoot first` laws is the belief that lethal force should be applied at first instinct, rather than being saved as a last resort," the organization says on its website.
"This system is based on a `shoot first, ask questions later` model, which can quickly turn a simple misunderstanding into a permanent tragedy." For example, a thief enters the house of a sleeping person. The person wakes up and examines the sounds and is struck by the thief holding a gun. In states with stand-your-ground laws, the threatened person could respond with violence – including using their own weapon, if they belong – if necessary. A person defending himself in such a situation would not have to worry about criminal prosecution. A 2017 study published in the Journal of Human Resources found that standing laws led to an increase in homicides and hospitalizations related to firearm injuries. The study estimated that at least 30 people a month died because of the laws. [39] A 2013 study published in the Journal of Human Resources found that laws on the ground in U.S. states "do not deter burglary, robbery, or serious bodily harm.
In contrast, they lead to a statistically significant net increase in the number of reported murders of 8%. [40] A 2016 study published in the Social Science Journal found that stand-your-ground laws were not associated with lower crime rates. [41] A 2016 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association compared murder rates in Florida following the passage of the "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law to rates in four control states, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Virginia, which do not have similar laws. It found that the law was associated with a 24.4% increase in homicides and a 31.6% increase in firearm-related homicides, but no change in suicide rates or firearm-related suicide rates between 2005 and 2014. He noted that "cases unique to Florida may have contributed to our conclusions, including those we could not identify," and "their study examined the effects of Florida`s law on murder and murder with firearms, not on crime and public safety." [42] [43] The study was criticized by researcher and gun rights advocate John Lott for examining only one state and focusing on a narrow definition of effectiveness. Studies by Lott`s Crime Prevention Research Center have found that easing restrictions on the use of defensive firearms, including "stand your-ground" laws, has led to a decrease in overall crime. [44] Self-defense expert Andrew Branca criticized the AMA study for failing to distinguish between justifiable homicide and murder, relying solely on statutory laws, while using case law (i.e., Virginia) to determine the dataset. [45] The study`s methodology was defended by Duke University professor Jeffrey Swanson for using other states as controls, saying, "Look at comparable trends in states that haven`t passed the law and don`t see the impact." [46] It is important to understand that even constitutionally abiding states still have certain limitations on the use of force in self-defense. For example, they may require that the perceived threat of harm be objectively reasonable and that the force used be proportionate to the threat. Stand-your-ground laws may also require that the person using self-defence be lawfully in the place (e.g., no trespassing) and not be the original aggressor in the altercation. Florida was the first country to pass a "Stand Your Ground" law in 2005, with 14 states adding theirs the following year, according to Yaki`s statement in the report. Sign up for our newsletter to get our research and journalist information delivered straight to your inbox.
Finally, there are states with a castle doctrine that allows a person to defend himself by force in the house or in his vehicles, but has the duty to retire to public places. These states are Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island. Whether a jurisdiction follows stand-your-ground or withdrawal is only one element of its self-defense laws. Different jurisdictions allow lethal force against various crimes.