Academic literature on the topic 'Stand your ground law'

AbstractSince the killing of Trayvon Martin, the Stand Your Ground law has come to emblematize contemporary racial injustice. Yet, the legitimacy of the statute endures, as more than thirty-three states maintain and enforce some version of Stand Your Ground. This article probes the legitimacy basis for Stand Your Ground by excavating and reconstructing its formative logic. Drawing on archival records of the Florida state legislature’s 2005 pioneering of the statute, I examine how lawmakers justified its introduction, design, and enactment. I find that proponents of Stand Your Ground framed it as a response to the cost impositions of criminal prosecution and civil action. In introducing Stand Your Ground, they sought to protect self-defensive actors against the burdens of administrative and judicial proceedings by granting them civil immunity. During the mark-up process, legislators held an extensive debate over the intended beneficiaries and victims of Stand Your Ground. Racial codes animated this debate: “drug dealers,” “gangs,” and “cop killers” represented the types of criminal subjects whom the legal protections of Stand Your Ground should exclude, while “violent criminals” in the “bad part of town” represented the intended objects of the statute’s authorization of deadly force. Ultimately, legislators translated the concerns raised during this debate into statutory design choices that baked race into Stand Your Ground.

Establishing whether specific laws impact rates of firearm homicide in adolescents is critical for identifying opportunities to reduce preventable adolescent death. We evaluated Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, enacted October 2005, using an interrupted time series design from 1999 to 2017. We used segmented quasi-Poisson regression to model underlying trends in quarterly rates of adolescent (15–19 years) firearm homicide in Florida and disaggregated by race (Black/White). We used synthetic and negative controls (firearm suicide) to address time-varying confounding. Before Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, the mean quarterly rate was 1.53 firearm homicides per 100 000 adolescents. Black adolescents comprised 63.5% of all adolescent firearm homicides before and 71.8% after the law. After adjusting for trends, the law was associated with a 44.6% increase in adolescent firearm homicide. Our analysis indicates that Florida’s Stand Your Ground is associated with a significant increase in firearm homicide and may also exacerbate racial disparities.

Background. Since 2005, most US states have expanded civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense outside the home. In most cases, legislation has included removing the duty to retreat anywhere one may legally be, commonly known as stand-your-ground laws. The extent to which these laws affect public health and safety is widely debated in public and policy discourse. Objectives. To synthesize the available evidence on the impacts and social inequities associated with changing civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense on violence, injury, crime, and firearm-related outcomes. Search Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts, Education Resources Information Center, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar, National Bureau of Economic Research working papers, and SocArXiv; harvested references of included studies; and consulted with experts to identify studies until April 2020. Selection Criteria. Eligible studies quantitatively estimated the association between laws that expanded or restricted the right to use deadly force in self-defense and population or subgroup outcomes among civilians with a comparator. Data Collection and Analysis. Two reviewers extracted study data using a common form. We assessed study quality using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tools adapted for (controlled) before–after studies. To account for data dependencies, we conducted graphical syntheses (forest plots and harvest plots) to summarize the evidence on impacts and inequities associated with changing self-defense laws. Main Results. We identified 25 studies that estimated population-level impacts of laws expanding civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense, all of which focused on stand-your-ground or other expansions to self-defense laws in the United States. Studies were scored as having serious or critical risk of bias attributable to confounding. Risk of bias was low across most other domains (i.e., selection, missing data, outcome, and reporting biases). Stand-your-ground laws were associated with no change to small increases in violent crime (total and firearm homicide, aggravated assault, robbery) on average across states. Florida-based studies showed robust increases (24% to 45%) in firearm and total homicide while self-defense claims under stand-your-ground law were more often denied when victims were White, especially when claimants were racial minorities. Author’s Conclusions. The existing evidence contradicts claims that expanding self-defense laws deters violent crime across the United States. In at least some contexts, including Florida, stand-your-ground laws are associated with increases in violence, and there are racial inequities in the application of these laws. Public Health Implications. In some US states, most notably Florida, stand-your-ground laws may have harmed public health and safety and exacerbated social inequities. Our findings highlight the need for scientific evidence on both population and equity impacts of self-defense laws to guide legislative action that promotes public health and safety for all. Trial Registration. Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/uz68e ).

In 2005, Florida became the first state to pass the heavily National Rifle Association, NRA, supported “Stand Your Ground” law. The most notable components of the law were abolishing the duty to retreat for someone who is not engaged in lawful activity and is in a place where he has the right to be, granting civil and criminal immunity to those using lawful force, and presuming that a person who is attacked in his dwelling, residence, and occupied vehicle has a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. The law was subject to a substantial amount of criticism because it was a significant departure from Florida’s more than a century old common law principles regarding self-defense. Possibly due to Florida not having any precedents for these cases, Florida courts would have conflicting decisions in these matters and law enforcement agencies would enforce the law differently in similar incidents. Regardless of the issues faced by Florida, over twenty states would adopt their own versions. A significant number of these states are in the Southeastern region of the United States and are neighbors to Florida or border Florida’s neighbors, such as Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Louisiana. Because of this interesting pattern, the study examines the idea of southern culture playing a role in the passage of “Stand Your Ground” via the “Culture of Honor” theory and the researcher decided to use these jurisdictions and Florida as this study’s sample. The researcher also wanted to include these jurisdictions because the existing “Stand Your Ground” literature mainly focuses on Florida and the researcher wanted to add something new to the discussion. The intent of this study to examine Florida’s influence on the other jurisdictions, note any commonalties between the statutes of the jurisdictions, compare justifiable homicide statistics for the jurisdictions that provided such data, predict the future of these laws, and explore the “Culture of Honor” Theory as a possible explanation for “Stand Your Ground” laws in the states discussed. The study accomplished these goals by examining how each jurisdiction handled self-defense before “Stand Your Ground,” looking at the motives behind the jurisdictions adopting “Stand Your Ground,” comparing justifiable homicides in the four jurisdictions that provided them in the years immediate preceding the passage of “Stand Your Ground” to the subsequent years, and looking at amendments and proposals that were presented after the passage of “Stand Your Ground.” The results uncovered that all the jurisdictions, except for Georgia and Tennessee, show a very strong Florida influence based on their similarities to Florida’s law and legislators in the jurisdictions clearly mentioning Florida as their inspiration for proposing their own versions. In the jurisdictions that provided justifiable homicides, all showed an increase in the number of justifiable homicides after the passage of “Stand Your Ground.” The jurisdictions in this study have also shown a strong resistance to any amendments or the complete repeal of this law. Therefore, any drastic amendment or the complete repeal seems unlikely in the future. The “Culture of Honor” Theory does explain why a few of the jurisdictions in the study adopted “Stand Your Ground” but Florida and the NRA’s influence explain why others chose this course of action.
B.S.
Bachelors
Health and Public Affairs
Legal Studies

In 2005, Florida enacted the Justifiable Use of Deadly Force legislation, known as Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws, in response to the Workman case. The aftermath of that case led to the expansion of the laws that removed the duty to retreat principle and allowed citizens to employ deadly force when imbued with fear. The SYG laws as written appeared to imply state-sanctioned violence, with an increase in homicides, coupled with racial disparities. This study employed a quantitative inquiry with a causal-comparative design to explore whether a relationship existed between racial socialization and fear of crime in SYG states compared to non-SYG states, using the lens of critical race theory, contact theory and policy learning theory. The study included 112 participants recruited through social media, they were ages 18 years and older, from Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia who had no connections to an SYG case. The data were analyzed using analysis of covariance and indicated statistical significance between the state of residency and an individual's decision to fight back when presented with a scenario similar to the Trayvon Martin case. The results also yielded a statistical significance between gender, ethnicity, and an individual'€™s decision to fight back in the SYG scenario. The findings of this study confirm that the state of residency may impact the decision to employ deadly force or fight back. However, other results are not consistent with previous research. This study provides legislatures with a means for reforming the SYG rhetoric, as well as decrease the public'€™s misconceptions about the SYG laws.

In 2012, the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin brought national attention to Florida’s Stand Your Ground (SYG) law. As of 2012, more than 20 states have enacted SYG laws. Previous studies suggest that these laws increase homicide, particularly justifiable homicide. However, these studies ignore race and/or gender. This study seeks to fill this gap in the literature by examining the effect of SYG laws on the number of homicide and justifiable homicide victims and offenders of a given race or gender. Using data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports between 2000 and 2012, we create a generalized least squares model with random and fixed effects and controls for time-varying state effects and year fixed effects to empirically examine this impact. We find that while SYG laws have no effect on the number of homicide victims or offenders of any race or gender, they significantly increase the number of black and male justifiable homicide victims by 32 percent and 26 percent respectively and the number of white and female justifiable homicide offenders by 34 and 25 percent respectively. These findings suggest that, in terms of justifiable homicide, SYG laws differentially affect racial and gender groups.

L’elaborato tratta il delicato tema della legittima difesa esercitata nel domicilio, che è stato oggetto di due riforme negli ultimi quindici anni – prima nel 2006, poi nel 2019 –, suscitando diffuse critiche e contrastanti pareri in ordine alla sua esatta portata. La grande attenzione pubblica per l’istituto e i due interventi legislativi hanno stimolato l’interesse e il desiderio di approfondire l’origine, la ratio e l’evoluzione della scriminante di cui all’art. 52 c.p. Lo scopo della presente indagine è duplice: da una parte, si è cercato di comprendere le esigenze sottostanti alle riforme e, più in generale, il fondamento del bisogno così ben radicato nella società contemporanea di una differenziazione di trattamento per le aggressioni perpetrate all’interno dell’abitazione; dall’altra, invece, partendo dallo studio della disciplina attualmente in vigore e dell’applicazione concreta della medesima ad opera della giurisprudenza, si è provato a trovare un equilibrio più soddisfacente tra le esigenze diffuse e il rispetto della Carta costituzionale e della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo, in sintesi una “contro-riforma sostenibile”. La tesi si articola in tre parti, di cui la prima è dedicata all’analisi storico-comparatistica della causa di giustificazione. In particolare, lo studio ripercorre le origini dell’istituto a partire dal diritto romano sino ai giorni nostri, cercando di evidenziare i precedenti storici atti a spiegare l’attuale predisposizione di una figura speciale di legittima difesa a beneficio di colui che sia aggredito in luoghi privati in ordine ai quali vanti uno ius excludendi alios nei confronti dell’aggressore. La ricerca storica è affiancata da un’indagine comparatistica, anch’essa impostata in prospettiva storica, che allarga lo sguardo alle scelte compiute in argomento dai principali ordinamenti europei – segnatamente quello francese e inglese –, nonché dal sistema federale statunitense. La seconda parte della tesi ha ad oggetto il diritto interno vigente; in particolare l’elaborato affronta prima la legge n. 59 del 13 febbraio 2006 e poi la legge n. 36 del 26 aprile 2019, ossia le riforme che hanno conferito rilievo alla figura speciale della legittima difesa domiciliare. A tal fine, si considera tanto il contesto politico criminale che ne ha segnato l’origine, quanto il contenuto delle riforme alla luce della giurisprudenza di legittimità; è stato infatti svolto uno studio su tutte le pronunce emesse dalla Corte di Cassazione in materia di legittima difesa domiciliare dal 1° gennaio 2000 sino al 1° gennaio 2021. Grazie a tale ricerca è emerso da una parte come la prima riforma risulti sostanzialmente priva di ricadute concrete e, dall’altra, come il secondo intervento legislativo, ove non sottoposto a un’interpretazione correttiva alla luce delle direttrici costituzionali e convenzionali europee, sia pericoloso per la tenuta del sistema. Lungo tale direttrice, l’indagine si sofferma in particolare sul ruolo che dovrebbero assumere il requisito della necessità e le presunzioni normative di legittimità della reazione. Con riferimento al caso dell’eccesso, poi, si prospettano i criteri rilevatori del grave turbamento e delle condizioni di minorata difesa a cui si ricollegano effetti scusanti. La terza ed ultima parte dell’elaborato, infine, tratta l’istituto in una prospettiva de iure condendo; nello specifico, prendendo le mosse dai risultati raggiunti attraverso l’indagine realizzata, si è provato ad avanzare una proposta di risistemazione della causa di giustificazione che si articola in tre passaggi, idealmente collegati tra loro. Secondo tale ipotesi di lavoro, l’art. 52 c.p. guadagnerebbe in razionalità ed efficacia se, anzitutto, fossero eliminati i commi disciplinanti la legittima difesa domiciliare attualmente in vigore; inoltre, alla disposizione di cui al c. 1 dell’art. 52 c.p. dovrebbe affiancarsi una scusante legata allo stato di turbamento emotivo vissuto dall’aggredito, applicabile alla fattispecie generale per i casi di eccesso e di errore sulla legittima difesa; infine, si potrebbe prevedere una presunzione iuris tantum di pericolo attuale per la sola incolumità dei presenti in caso di aggressione perpetrata all’interno del domicilio e dell’esercizio commerciale. La compresenza di tali proposte modificative sembrerebbe in grado di conferire un rinnovato equilibrio alla causa di giustificazione, da una parte dando voce e riconoscimento alle istanze diffuse, dall’altra rispettando i principi e i valori di cui la Costituzione e la Convezione europea dei diritti dell’uomo sono espressione, dall’altra ancora imprimendo una spinta contraria rispetto all’attuale tendenza antistatalista, se non addirittura anticostituzionale, di cui le due recenti riforme in materia si sono rese portavoce.
The thesis deals with the delicate issue of self defence exercised in the home, which has been the subject of two reforms in the last fifteen years – first in 2006, then in 2019 –, arousing widespread criticism and conflicting opinions regarding its exact scope. The great public attention for the institute and the two legislative interventions have stimulated the interest and the desire to investigate the origin, the ratio and the evolution of the justification regulated by art. 52 c.p. The purpose of this survey is twofold: on the one hand, an attempt has been made to understand the needs underlying the reforms and, more generally, the foundation of the need so well rooted in contemporary society for a differentiation of treatment for attacks perpetrated inside the house; on the other hand, starting from the study of the discipline currently in force and the concrete application of the same by jurisprudence, an attempt has been made to find a more satisfactory balance between the widespread needs and compliance with the Constitutional Charter and the European Convention of human rights, in short a "sustainable counter-reform". The thesis is divided into three parts, of which the first is dedicated to the historical-comparative analysis of the justification. In particular, the study traces the origins of the institute starting from Roman law up to the present day, trying to highlight the historical precedents capable of explaining the current predisposition of a special figure of self defence in favour of anyone who is attacked in private places, where individuals boasts an ius excludendi alios against the aggressor. The historical research is accompanied by a comparative survey, also set in a historical perspective, which broadens the gaze to the choices made on the subject by the main European systems – notably the French and English ones –, as well as by the US federal system. The second part of the thesis concerns the internal law in force; in particular, the paper first deals with law no. 59 of 13 February 2006 and then the law n. 36 of 26 April 2019, i.e. the reforms that have given prominence to the special figure of home self defence. To this end, both the criminal political context that marked its origin and the content of the reforms in the light of the jurisprudence of legitimacy are considered; in fact, a study was carried out on all the rulings issued by the Court of Cassation regarding home self defence from 1 January 2000 until 1 January 2021. Thanks to this research, it emerged on the one hand how the first reform is substantially devoid of concrete repercussions and, on the other hand, how the second legislative intervention, if not subjected to a corrective interpretation in the light of constitutional and conventional guidelines, is dangerous for system tightness. Along this line, the investigation focuses in particular on the role that the requirement of necessity and the normative presumptions of legitimacy of the reaction should assume. With reference to the case of excess, then, are presented the criteria for detecting the serious disturbance and the conditions of impaired defence to which excuse effects are linked. Finally, the third and last part of the paper deals with the institution from a de iure condendo perspective; specifically, starting from the results achieved through the survey carried out, an attempt was made to put forward a proposal for reorganization of the justification which is divided into three steps, ideally connected to each other. According to this working hypothesis, art. 52 c.p. would gain rationality and effectiveness if, first of all, the paragraphs governing home self defence currently in force were eliminated; furthermore, beside the provision referred to art. 52 c. 1 c.p., there should be an excuse linked to the state of emotional disturbance experienced by the attacked, applicable in cases of excess and error in self defence; finally, an iuris tantum presumption of current danger could be envisaged for the sole safety of those present in the event of aggression perpetrated within the home and business. The coexistence of these amending proposals would seem capable of giving a renewed balance to the justification, first of all giving voice and recognition to the widespread requests, furthermore respecting the principles and values of which the Constitution and the European Convention of human rights are an expression, and lastly still giving a push contrary to the current anti-statist tendency, if not even anti-constitutional, of which the two recent reforms on the subject have become spokesmen.

acase@tulane.edu
I present three essays in applied microeconomics. In the first, I use police records to explore whether changing self defense policies, known as Stand Your Ground, have differential effects across race. I find that implementing these policies leads to an additional 1.611 monthly killings of black Alleged Perpetrators of Crimes, 70.8 percent of whom are killed by black citizens, while only causing an additional 0.345 monthly killings of white Alleged Perpetrators, 97.7 percent of whom are killed by white citizens. In the second, I examine the causal relationship between waterborne uranium exposure and birth outcomes in order to more fully understand the external costs of the activities that increase the probability of human exposure to uranium. I find that waterborne uranium contamination does not cause an observable decrease in human capital endowment proxies. In the third, I estimate the national average passive use value for Alaskan National Parks. I find that respondents are willing to pay $115 to $409 for a 5 percent expansion of the Denali National Park.
1
Michael Steven Spanbauer

This concluding chapter examines the relationship between the increasing codification of aggressive “Stand Your Ground” laws since 2005 and the continued relevance of the Western as a popular genre. This final chapter presents a reading of two contemporary Westerns, the television series Justified (2010-15) and Quentin Tarrantino's film, Django Unchained (2012), arguing that the film epitomizes the challenge of gun possession and self-defense within a neoliberal state.