The paper will explore the criminal justice policy of castle doctrine. A person’s house is his castle, says the popular council. And within him that person has the right to defend himself from intruders and aggressors, even with lethal force, if he deems it necessary. It is an old notion with medieval edges that has passed into modern Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence as the Castle Doctrine.
But lately in the United States, new laws have expanded the size of the castle in which it is legal to defend yourself, which is no longer limited to the home, but has been extended to the workplace, personal vehicle and to all public spaces where an individual has the right to be (Light 37).
Since 2005, partly driven by efforts by the National Rifle Association and advocates of the right to bear arms, 18 states have passed some type of law, known as Stand Your Ground (“stay in your place” or “stop or shoot”) for a total of 21.
One of the states where critics consider self-defense laws to be more permissive, or ambiguous, is Florida, where in February 2012 a volunteer neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman, killed a young black man, Trayvon Martin, when he was killed. He intercepted his mostly white neighborhood in the Sanford population. Zimmerman, who claimed to feel threatened by Martin, was found not guilty of the crime this weekend, but the case reactivated the debate on the advisability of expanding the laws that protect self-defense among those who consider that they foment violence and those who say that it dissuades potential attackers.
Statistics seem to help both sides of the debate. According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the number of “justifiable murders”, carried out in the exercise of self-defense, went from 196 in 2005 to 278 in 2010. The total number of murders declined in that same period, according to some, due to the reinforcement of the laws that allow the carrying of arms and the controversial expansion of the concept of self-defense.
Because the new castle law has both theoretical and practical grounds, the new castle law has won the support of many people. Supporters believe: First, any law comes at a price, and the new castle law is no exception. As discussed in the previous article, the new castle law can lead to unreasonable or disproportionate use of force. But in this case, you should be rational and not too critical, because “criminal law is a highly specialized social control tool, useful for some purposes, but useless for other purposes.” From the perspective of the implementation effect of the new castle law, it can make the residents in the house feel safer because it has the right to use lethal force to protect itself in more occasions. If the castle law is repealed, it will be detrimental to protecting the interests of residential residents. From the perspective of the purpose of the defense right and its defenders belonging to the “positive” side, the rights of the defenders should be protected, not belong to the party that should be placed at risk or victim. Second, the “subjective standard” is not absolute, nor does it mean that it is necessarily unfair, because the subjective standard can be overturned. Opponents ’concerns are reasonable, but they neglect the adjustment of the new castle law legislation to the excessive situation.
The castle doctrine has achieved such rapid development in legislative practice because it has important positive significance. First, the new castle law has important expression and symbolic meaning. Judging from the content of the New Castle Law, it embodies the spirit of non-concession, protection of property, life, and freedom, which is in line with the American “American mind” -style thinking and value orientation. Since its establishment, the United States has recognized the basic rights of citizens such as life and freedom. Fundamental rights such as life and freedom, including the autonomy and safety of individual citizens, are recognized in various ways by the laws of the US states. The castle law is also to respect these rights of citizens and the value of human life, which is a further emphasis on the importance of these rights. Starting from abandoning the “concession obligation” in British common law, it has been focusing on the realization of the “real man” purpose, and has continuously given residential occupants more rights to protect themselves when the state cannot intervene to protect their rights. Therefore, the New Castle Law embodies the idea of individual rights, self-reliance, and personal value, which is consistent with the thinking and value orientation of American citizens. On the other hand, the protection of “residential” from other legitimate defenses as a special right to “special” protection can further protect citizens’ “right to housing”. Judging from the content and purpose of the law, it recognizes the sacredness of “dwellings” and the vulnerabilities it faces in private spaces such as its transportation. The special protection of the castle law as a public policy enhances its status. Moreover, such legislation also allows citizens to enjoy the right to protect their body, life and property in their own “house” from damage or infringement from illegal intrusion or attempted illegal intrusion. This basic right enjoyed by citizens is reiterated again (Cook and Kristin 71).
Second, the value of the “New Castle Law” stipulates that it focuses on protecting the rights and interests of defenders. The reason why the New Castle Law adopts subjective standards and adheres to the presumption of “reasonable conviction” and “violent or illegal use of force” is to better provide substance for the legal occupants of space such as residence, residence or in-use transportation protection. For example, if the intruder is illegal or forcibly entering or has entered the above space, the defender does not need to make a legal analysis of the intruder’s subjective purpose. Because in this case, if the law stipulates whether to consider whether the intruder will use a short delay of lethal force, it may result in the loss of life or unnecessary harm to the occupants in the residence. If the presumption does not apply, and according to the traditional principle of proportionality in legitimate defense, only when it is determined that the intruder will use lethal force, the defender can use lethal force to counterattack. Full. However, according to the provisions of the new castle law, defenders do not need to spend time analyzing the purpose of the intruder, let alone wonder whether the intruder will use force or violence. This is very beneficial for the protection of the residents in the law-abiding houses. Therefore, the provisions of the new castle law can make a person’s house truly a person’s castle, giving citizens the right to truly enjoy a quiet and undisturbed life in the house.
Although the new castle law adopts subjective standards and” presumed reasonable “policies, it also provides: If the authority can prove that the defendant ’s reasonable (honest) belief is unreasonable, the defendant ’s reasonable belief can be overturned. That is to say, if the defendant’s behavior deviates too much from the general code of conduct, it will not receive the support of the judiciary, but the responsibility of overthrowing the defendant’s honest, reasonable and confident responsibility is borne by the prosecution. For example, a normal person would not think a sleeping person poses an urgent threat to him. Therefore, the adoption of the “subjective standard” in the New Castle Law actually realizes the transfer of reasonable and unreasonable burden of proof. Third, from the practical point of view, doubts that may lead to an increase in violent crimes are also untenable. Judging from the practice of scholars, the violent crimes of the states that passed the new castle law have not risen. On the contrary, many violent crimes have indeed decreased.
Works Cited
Light, Caroline. Stand Your Ground – Americas Love Affair with Lethal Self-Defense. , 2017. Print.
Cook, Philip J, and Kristin A. Goss. The Gun Debate. , 2014. Internet resource.
