The Castle Doctrine - Essay Example

and Number The Castle Doctrine The New Castle Doctrine and the Right to Defend Within the Dan Rather news reportsentitled “The Castle Doctrine,” there is essentially one distinct argument for why the New Castle Doctrine supports a person’s right to defend themselves which is a right that has been guaranteed to the people by the Constitution.The primary and most prevalent argument is that a person cannot depend on the police to save them or help them in a dangerous situation, and it is because of this that a person should be able to protect themselves with deadly force without fear of prosecution.

This is also extended to the idea of protecting your own property. This argument showcases, according to the report, “a loss of faith in law enforcement”(“The Castle Doctrine”). With the police being stretched thin due to an increase in crime, people don’t want to have to wait for law enforcement to come and save them especially if they are in a potentially life threatening situation. The New Castle Doctrine takes away the “vulnerability” that people feel in an increasingly violent world and makes them feel safer(“The Castle Doctrine”).

Having this doctrine to back them up is important in order to prevent someone who was merely defending themselves from going to jail as people have the basic right to protect their own lives, their loved ones, or their property. The New Castle Doctrine and a License to Kill There are a few different arguments which make up the reasons as to why the New Castle Doctrine is essentially a license to kill. The first reason is that people simply aren’t very well educated on what this particular doctrine covers in terms of the situations when a person can defend themselves with deadly force.

Most people simply look at this law and believe that they will be protected no matter what as long as some sort of crime was committed. Ultimately, this leads into the second argument against the New Castle Doctrine as this type of legislation basically turns people into vigilantes who take justice into their own hands regardless of the situation. This is illustrated in the case of the gas station clerk who shot a man after he stole a case of beer(“The Castle Doctrine”). The New Castle Doctrine allows a person to exact their own vengeance even if the punishment does not fit the crime.

Finally, those against the New Castle Doctrine believe that it will really hurt the legal and court system within the country as many of these vigilantes are being acquitted of any wrong doings due to their claims that they used deadly force because of the New Castle Doctrine. This might lead to a slew of criminals being found not guilty if they all decide to utilize this New Castle Doctrine as a potential defense which is difficult to disprove as it relies heavily on the defendant’s belief that they were in a threatening situation whether they actually were or not.

Striking a Balance There is no doubt that the right to bear arms elicits a variety of reactions within the American public. Those who are for the right to bear arms believe that this is one of the most important aspects in all of the Constitution and essentially defines them as Americans. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”(“The Sources of Our Rights”).

However, those on the opposite side, see this right as an invitation to violence and the root of the high rates of crime in our country. Even though there is so much conflict between these two sides, it is possible to strike a balance between defending yourself and protecting innocent people. The report by Dan Rather showcases the main way to establish balance: in order to justify protecting yourself and bearing arms, a felony needs to be committed rather than simply a misdemeanor. This was illustrated with the gas store clerk who shot and killed another man over a case of beer(“The Castle Doctrine”).

As stealing a case of beer is not a felony, and the thief was not armed, the gas store clerk ended up being charged with murder as this clerk did not have a justifiable reason under the law for killing this man. Another case, where an armed robber entered a store and forced the clerk to hand over money at gun point, is a different story. As the robber was leaving, the clerk shot and killed him(“The Castle Doctrine”). In this situation, the robber committed a felony, so the clerk was justified in his actions(“The Castle Doctrine”).

This latter situation reflects the balance that must be kept when it comes to protecting yourself versus protecting an innocent. Although the thief in the first case was not really innocent, the store clerk was not in any danger and should have allowed the police to handle this matter rather than take justice into his own hands. The store clerk in the other situation had the right to react as he did because the robber was armed which put the clerk in a life threatening situation in addition to the fact that a felony was being committed.

This proves that although a person should always have the right to bear arms, they should also only be allowed to utilize deadly force when their own lives or the lives of their loved ones are threatened, and if this threatening situation occurs in conjunction with a felony act. By educating the public on the laws regarding self defense, there is less chance of someone getting shot that doesn’t deserve to and allows law enforcement the chance to do their job. At the same time, however, it provides a person with the ability to protect themselves if they really need to.

Ultimately, this balance reflects ethical public policy because citizens would continue to have the right to bear arms, but it ensures that vigilante justice does not get out of control. In some of the areas that have adopted the New Castle Doctrine, according to Dan Rather’s report, vigilante justice increased exponentially because people believed that this legislation gave them a “get out of jail free card,” but by educating the public on laws like these, and by making an example out of those who violate the law, the situation is kept in control and made ethical as people who do not deserved to be killed will be protected, and people who’s lives are being threatened by a criminal will also be protected(“The Castle Doctrine”).

There is little doubt that this issue will continue to inspire heated debates. That is why it is so important to make sure that the balance between a right to defend and protecting innocent people is kept. By doing this, both sides are somewhat placated, and it keeps the American legal system intact in addition to lowering the likelihood of conflict in future legal cases. References Clark , Bruce A. "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms." Old-Yankee.com. Web. 21 Oct. 2011. ."The Castle Doctrine .

" Rather, Dan. Dan Rather Reports. HDNet. 24 Oct. 2008. Web. Transcript.