Wisconsin Castle Doctrine - Research Paper Example

Wisconsin Castle Doctrine Wisconsin Castle Doctrine A Castle Doctrine is a doctrine which gives the power to a person who holds property, or has legally occupied a property, to use deadly force against a person who intrudes without permission. A person has the right to certain extent of immunity and protection that he has for the property and thus in certain circumstances the person can also use deadly force for defending against intruder. The Castle Doctrine is the legal doctrine in America and usually the deadly force can be used without the property owner being persecuted for it. Under this doctrine, the deadly force and the defense of homicide is considered to be justified and applicable. The legal doctrine is, however, not a law which is defined and that can be traced, rather it is known to be a bundle of principles incorporated in the law reform for most of the states of U.S. the term Castle Doctrine is derived from the English common law history where the dictum stated that the home of an Englishman is his ‘castle’. This dictum was set out in 17th century as the English Law. The jurist Sir Edward Coke had established the concept in his book ‘The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628’. Furthermore, the dictum was spread out and used by many of the colonists in the New World. Thus, the word English was removed by the colonists and the phrase was now ‘a man’s home is his castle’, and eventually became the Castle Doctrine. In England, the law under the concept allowed the person to have absolute power and right to defend his land or property from anyone who intrudes without permission. There have always been restrictions that apply to this doctrine (Caldwell, 2006). The doctrine initially originated in the 18th century by Matthew Henry who was a Presbyterian minister and the commentator of the bible. He established the concept of self defense by quoting the Torah. He stated that the Torah had given an exception to murder which was the need of self defense. Under the natural justice which is given to a man by God, a man can defend himself of danger, his property, his wife and children and overall anyone who is in a life threatening position around him. The law of natural justice states that God has given man the right to defend and save the life of anyone who is at risk. This also applies for the property of a man. Any thief who was clearly caught attacking and breaking in the house of a person can be hit or killed by the home owner in defense of his property, and however the person shall not be guilty under any charge. Further clearance of the topic suggested that if the thief is hit badly so that he dies, the owner is not liable to any debt, but if the thief survives, the owner is liable to pay the blood debt. Under this concept and the concept in the English Common Law, the American doctrine was interpreted. The English Common Law also observed the concept of natural justice which says that leave the owner of the property with the natural right of killing the intruder. The doctrine thus, justifies the defense against the criminals and intruders, and also against the agents who try to enter without reasonable warrants (Scheb, 2010). An important notice about the Castle Doctrine is that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution shares a mutual background with these laws. The Fourth Amendment plays a significantly important role in the strengthening of the castle doctrine laws. These laws were strengthened after the fourth amendment had become effective. The amendment provided the freedom to the property owner to decide for themselves that which entry was lawful and which was not, and according to that they could take action. It also gave them the right to use deadly force against a police officer who is on duty. The castle doctrine principle approached to the common sense approach that whoever intrudes unlawfully in the property or house precisely has the motive to harm it. Thus the home owner could take action upon anyone who intrudes. The Indiana State Supreme Court’s decision formed a new legislation where the property owners were not permitted to use deadly force against the police officers even if they think he has entered unlawfully. Under the decision of the court, the home owner could not use any kind of force against the police officers who are trying to gain entry in the homes whether lawfully or unlawfully. The biggest problem with the new law was that it was dependent upon the owner’s belief whether the police officer is lawfully entering or unlawfully. This was a risky situation thus the use of deadly force was not applicable (Taslitz, 2006). Also, most of the people do not understand what the actual law is, especially relating to the search or seizure laws. It is not evident in the fourth amendment that a police officer is exempted from the usage of deadly force; in fact the text in the constitution gives clear words but does not define the exact position of the law. It actually governs that the government may enter the homes and properties of citizens. But in order to understand the law with the light of governance, the reader should read all the court decisions taken in this aspect. The judges have interpreted the law in their framework and that provides the strengthening to the state of the law. Unfortunately most people do not read these court decisions and thus they remain unaware of the true picture of the law (Scheb, 2010). The decision of the court which stated the picture of the new law was Richard L. Barnes v. State. Barnes claimed that the police had interfered in a domestic fight between a wife and a husband. When the police had arrived, the husband and the wife were outside their home. However, when they went to their homes, the police went in too, but the husband, Barnes, disallowed the police to enter. On refusing the police to enter the house, there was some physical violence between him and the police officer under which Barnes was charged. He was charged for battery of a police officer. When Barnes was bought to the court of law, he argues that the police officer had entered his home unlawfully and he shall be granted the defense under castle doctrine as it was an unlawful entry. The court of Indiana rejected this argument and affirmed Barnes’ conviction (Levy, 2000). Moreover, there is a general principle of law which states that one should not resist or act against a police officer. The issues corresponding to the situations, conditions and the conduct of the officer are to be reviewed on a secondary level. Since the police officers are assigned with certain powers and positions, allowance to such acts would result in the contempt and abuse of law, and unnecessary violence. The issue of the application of the castle doctrine defense for cases involving police is also under practical consideration. The major consideration is that to analyze whether the police has entered lawfully or unlawfully, in terms of warrants. This analysis is very complex and usually citizens who have unclear understanding of the law may not be able to analyze. It is beyond the knowledge of an ordinary citizen to understand the conduct and duties of the police (Taslitz, 2006). The law in Indiana under the Supreme Court decision has given much rise to controversies. The decision seemed to provide more security to the homeowners but instead it created complexities and confrontations to base on the assumptions that what is lawful and what is not. Confrontations would always take place which would eventually lead to more property owners being arrested and the increased risk of injuries arises. However in regard to the complexity these situations create in the state of law, the best thing is to leave it to the courts to decide (Caldwell, 2006). ‘Make My Day Law’ is another term which is used for the castle doctrine. This term was initiated in 1985 in the Colorado statute which proposed that people should be protected from any criminal or civil charge when they use the deadly force against the one who intrudes in their homes unlawfully. The law allows the usage of deadly force but in certain conditions. The first condition to use deadly force is that the intruder enters or makes an attempt to enter the dwelling unlawfully or forcefully. Secondly, the homeowner should have a firm belief that the intruder is acting unlawfully, or has the intention to harm the owner or the property. Thirdly, the homeowner must have the belief that the intruder is going to use any sort of physical force against them, or has threatened. These three conditions are the elements to avoid the legal liability under this law. If any one of these conditions does not exist, then the defense cannot provide legal protection to the owner (Levy, 2000). The purpose of the ‘Make by Day Law’ is to provide the residents of the state the right to absolute security in their homes. This statute confirms the security of the citizens under their own roofs, and any interference in that security gives rise to the castle doctrine defense without being persecuted for the action taken. The consideration and application of the statute is only under the unlawful entry of the intruder in the house. The homeowner enjoys immunity from legal action only if the deadly force is used against an unlawful intruder. However, it is clear that the intruder’s family members cannot seek for remedies if the intrusion was unlawful. No remedy for injuries or death can be entertained by the court in regard to the ‘Make My Day Law’. Because of the complexities in the law, there are certain important things that are highlighted for every citizen of the U.S. Some of the exceptions to the use of deadly force under ‘Make My Day Law’ are intruders who are already in the house and looking at the valuables, intruders who are intoxicated or drugged, intruders who are found holding valuables and walking out, intruders who have robbed the house and are already running away without any threat to the owner, intruders who are fleeing away in their vehicle, and intruders who have robbed the house but are already out of the territory. The castle doctrine may not be used for these intruders, however it can be used for the intruder who pushed the homeowner or threatens him of his life while he robs the house and walks out (Scheb, 2010). If a civil lawsuit is filed against a homeowner who used deadly force against the intruder, they have an immunity which is granted to them. In the criminal cases, the castle doctrine laws provide the homeowner with the valid defense. One of these clauses is the ‘Stand-Your-Ground clause’ which provides the homeowner with the immunity from any damages filed against him for the injury caused to the intruder. If this clause had not been existent, the intruder who has been affected by the deadly force could sue the homeowner for their injuries, their medical treatment, their pain, suffering, disability or property damage. Moreover, without this clause, not only the injuries but the death of the intruder could also be compensated to their families. Even otherwise, the homeowner would have to pay heavy costs for the cases in the courts. However, a homeowner can be sued for damages in civil lawsuit if he uses self defense against an intruder who wasn’t actually acting criminally or threatening him. The use of self defense and deadly force would not have been applicable in that case and the homeowner would have to pay the damages. The stand-your-ground-law in the U.S defines that a homeowner can use self defense or deadly force wherever he believes that there is an unlawful action taking place, without any necessity to retreat first. The origin of this concept is in statutory law and through the precedents of common law. However, there are some complexities which include the distinction that is the concept applicable to the defense of one’s home and vehicle or also for all the locations that are lawfully occupied by a person. In simpler words, the legal concept states that a person can justifiably use deadly force against an intruder in certain conditions, and in those situation the ‘stand-your-ground-law’ will provide the person with the defense or immunity from the charges; criminal or civil (Taslitz, 2006). It is important to note the difference between the defense and immunity in these circumstances. The defense is a justification that is argues in the court proceedings by the defender to justify his actions and conduct by mitigation. A defense may be used in criminal or civil convictions and it may reduce or nullify the damages. Immunity means that a person is prevented of the lawsuit, the charges, the arrest or the detention. This means that the person does not have to enter the legal proceedings as he is barred from them and does not fulfill the eligibility of mitigating under that claim. The Castle Doctrine has been incorporated and implemented by half of the U.S states. It clearly states that the homeowner does not have a duty to retreat if their home is attacked by intruders. In some of the states, the laws incorporated are more flexible and they go further than the other states. These laws state that the homeowner does not have the duty to retreat from all the other locations such as vehicles, occupied land etc. The laws of ‘Line In The Sand’, ‘No Duty to Retreat’ and ‘Stand Your Ground’ are laws which state that the homeowner does not have the duty towards the abandoning of the place where he has the right to be. These laws also state that the homeowner doesn’t have any duty to retreat from the place where the defender is legally meant to be. There are certain restrictions to these laws which exist in some states stating that when the person is in public, he must carry firearms under legal manners rather than openly (Caldwell, 2006). Stand Your Ground is a U.S constitutional law which clearly says that the person can rightfully use self defense without being criminally convicted. The US Supreme Court held in the Beard v. U.S that a person, who was on his premises and did not provoke any assault against the deceased, yet believed that the deceased had the intention to take his life or give him great bodily harm has no obligation to retreat and is subjected to stand your ground. In some states the laws are already passed but in others strong considerations are being made on the implementations of these laws. Critics often criticize the stand your ground laws implemented by states. The controversy in Florida regard the tripling of the self defense claims brought in the courts because of these laws. The critics say that it has become very difficult to analyze the claims especially when a person shoots someone and then claims self defense on his reasonable beliefs (Levy, 2000). References Caldwell, M. (2006). The Devil’s Advocates: Greatest Closing Arguments in Criminal Law. NJ: Simon and Schuster Levy, L. (2000). Original Intent and the Framer’s Constitution. Texas: Rowman & Littlefield Scheb, J. (2010). Criminal Law and Procedure. London: Cengage Learning Taslitz, A. (2006). Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment: A History of Search and Seizure, 1789-1868. NY: NYU Press Read More