The Stand Your Ground Law - Essay Example

Your full March 30, Stand Your Ground Law The “Stand Your Ground” law allows a person to use deadly force in self-defense without retreating. The law is a part of the Castle Doctrine according to which an individual is allowed to use deadly force when his property, home, or physical boundaries are invaded by means of assault, attack, or rape. However, there has been a lot of controversy whether the “Stand Your Ground” law should be revoked or maintained. The controversy faced great hype when in February 26, 2012, an armed watchman, Zimmerman, shot down an unarmed person, Trayvon Martin, in self-defense in Florida (CNN). It was reported that at the time of death, Martin was unarmed. The “Stand Your Ground” law made Zimmerman’s arrest as invalid. Since then, rallies and protests have made the “Stand Your Ground law” too controversial. This paper tends to discuss that opponents claim that “Stand Your Ground” must be revoked so that common police and governmental agencies may be empowered to take action against crime; and, public health and safety may be improved by removal of firearms. Contrarily, proponents argue that this law should be maintained to guarantee the safety of citizens and especially of women. Opponents of “Stand Your Ground’ law claim that owning weapons as a means of using deadly force makes the matter worse by making self-defense a kind of self-help. Allowing weapons as a means of using deadly force will make criminals better instead of eliminating crime. This is because they will become better equipped with better weapons, and will be readier to shoot. Hence, the social factor here is that the more the weapons, the more are the chances of accidental shots. Even a slight conflict will make people shoot and pounce at each other. The power of government and police will be diminished, because people will not look for help from security agencies and police, and will defend themselves through the use of deadly force. Moreover, it is all a matter of relative safety. Since it is generally accepted that use of deadly force means owning weapons, hence individuals owning weapons will feel safe, and those without weapons will be the most vulnerable which will make them look forward to possessing weapons. The state which will allow guns will feel safer than that which does not. This relative safety will disturb the balance of power and peace among people, agencies, and nations. There is an interesting research by Branas et al. (2034-2040) which supports the above-mentioned argument. They studied the potential link between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time of assault. They enrolled 677 case participants who had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. Interestingly, they found that individuals who possessed guns were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those who did not possess any weapon for self-defense. Individuals who showed resistance to assault as self-defense were more likely to get shot by the criminals. This research proves that the use of deadly force in the form of weapons in self-defense is not a suitable approach toward safety. The power of government and police agencies should be greater than the power of people. Cheng (821-854) also supports this argument. He conducted a research to study within-state variation in self-defense law or “Stand Your Ground” law to analyze the effect of allowing the use of deadly force in homicides and violent crime. He states in his research (8211) that “the laws do not deter burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. In contrast, they lead to a statistically significant 8 percent net increase in the number of reported murders and non-negligent manslaughters.” An important ethical consideration that should be taken into account is the carrying of firearms in public under “Stand Your Ground” law, which is disastrous for public health. It seems very irrational why a man should be allowed to carry guns or other firearms as means of deadly force against self-defense in public. Such an act is apt to invoke more violence, and tends to motivate other citizens to own firearms too. Gradually, the whole society will become violent, with every one carrying arms to protect himself as if they are living in a jungle and not in a humanized society. Vernick (84-87) supports this by mentioning that although the District of Columbia v. Heller case gave rise to the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the right of self-defense through the use of lethal force, still Heller decision did not provide the lower courts with much guidance about how to evaluate the constitutionality of gun laws. The researcher states that since the Second Amendment jurisprudence passed in the Supreme Court, the controversy of carrying firearms in public has raised many serious public health issues that need serious ethical consideration at governmental level. “Researchers and public health practitioners must be prepared to assist courts in obtaining and interpreting research relevant to gun carrying in public. The public health stakes- measured in mortality and morbidity- are substantial”, states Vernick (87). The proponents of the “Stand Your Ground” law ask how the citizens are going to ensure their safety when they are restricted from using force against crime, according to Ayoob (24, para.3). People wish to keep guns, daggers, and other weapons to enjoy their autonomy and guarantee their safety when they meet robbers, criminals and terrorists. Armed citizens feel their strength in protecting themselves and their families from physically stronger criminals. If use of deadly force against criminals is banned, the wrongdoers will still obtain guns and ammunition from whatever illegal sources, and the one who will be in loss is the common man. Use of deadly force in self-defense is one of people’s constitutionally protected rights. And when one has a right upon something, one does not have to validate the need for it. Banning “Stand Your Ground” law will only encourage the criminals to do whatever they want because the victim will not be able to do anything in self-defense. This is incorrect to restrict a citizen from using deadly force when his life or prestige is in danger. Also, the proponents of “Stand Your Ground” law favor this law when it comes to women and the protection of their prestige. Women need to carry a weapon when they are travelling in a desolate place, especially when they are alone. They need to be fully equipped when they are living alone, as a single parent or as a single person. This is because they are able to protect themselves if somebody tries to assault them for money or for the intention of rape, or in case the spouses batter them regularly. Charles (301) writes: “Pervasive acceptance of women’s armed self-defense could help change the current rape culture and encourage women to take responsibility for their own safety, while working for equality and an end to patriarchy.” Putting it all together, proponents and opponents of “Stand Your Ground” law have opposing claims regarding this law. Banning the use of deadly force in self-defense is necessary to give power to police agencies and the government to combat crime. People who carry firearms for self-defense are more prone to violent attacks as compared to those who do not possess weapons. Carrying firearms in public is disastrous for public health and safety. However, it is also important to allow people to use force to protect themselves. Hence, lawmakers should consider both the pros and cons of this law before making any significant changes to it. Works Cited Ayoob, Massad. The Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry. New York, NY: Gun Digest Books, 2012. Branas, Charles C., Richmond, Therese S., Culhane, Dennis P., Have, Thomas R. Ten, and Douglas J. Wiebe. “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault.” American Journal of Public Health 99.11(2009): 2034-2040. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099 < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/> Charles, Lindsay K. “Why Feminists Should Embrace Firearms?” Feminists and Firearms: Why Are So Many Women Anti-Choice? 17.297(2011): 297-318. Cheng, Cheng. Does “Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Expansions to Castle Doctrine.” Journal of Human Resources 48.3(2013): 821-854. < http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf> CNN. Trayvon Martin Shooting Fast Facts. CNN, 2014. Web. 30 Mar 2014. . Vernick, Jon S. “Carrying Guns in Public: Legal and Public Health Implications.” The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 41.s1(2013): 84-87. Read More