Study Says ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Increase Homicides
Study Says ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Increase Homicides
June 11, 2012, 1:42 PM
By Joe Pallazolo
In April, more than a month after the shooting of Trayvon Martin, we looked the incidence of justifiable homicides in states with “stand your ground” or “castle doctrine” laws like Florida’s.
In general, such laws grant people more leeway to use lethal force on an attacker. More than 20 were passed after Florida’s in 2005. They typically do at least one of the following:
• Remove a person’s duty to retreat in places outside the home
• Add the presumption that the person who killed in self defense had a reasonable fear of death or harm
• Grant people who killed in self-defense immunity from civil lawsuits
Justifiable homicides nearly doubled from 2000 to 2010, according to the most recent data available, when 326 were reported. The data, provided by federal and state law enforcement agencies, showed a sharp increase in justifiable homicides occurred after 2005, when Florida and 16 other states passed the laws.
While the overall homicide rates in those states stayed relatively flat, the average number of justifiable cases per year increased by more than 50% in the decade’s latter half.
In a new study, an economics professor and a PhD student at Texas A&M; University take a broader look at the laws’ effect. The authors, Professor Mark Hoekstra and Cheng Cheng, use state-level crime data from 2000 to 2009 to determine whether the laws deter crime.
The answer, they conclude, is no. In fact, the evidence suggests the laws have led to an increase in homicides.
From the study:
Results indicate that the prospect of facing additional self-defense does not deter crime. Specifically, we find no evidence of deterrence effects on burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. Moreover, our estimates are sufficiently precise as to rule out meaningful deterrence effects.
In contrast, we find significant evidence that the laws increase homicides. Suggestive but inconclusive evidence indicates that castle doctrine laws increase the narrowly defined category of justifiable homicides by private citizens by 17 to 50 percent, which translates into as many as 50 additional justifiable homicides per year nationally due to castle doctrine. More significantly, we find the laws increase murder and manslaughter by a statistically significant 7 to 9 percent, which translates into an additional 500 to 700 homicides per year nationally across the states that adopted castle doctrine.
Thus, by lowering the expected costs associated with using lethal force, castle doctrine laws induce more of it. This increase in homicides could be due either to the increased use of lethal force in self-defense situations, or to the escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal conflicts. We suspect that self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase, as we also find that murder alone is increased by a statistically significant 6 to 11 percent.
As the authors note, the increase in homicides may not be viewed by everyone as “unambiguously bad.” It could be driven by individuals protecting themselves from imminent harm by using lethal force. But it could also be driven by an escalation in violence that, absent the “castle doctrine,” wouldn’t have ended in serious injury for either party, they say.
Read More: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/11/study-says-sta...
Top Opinion
-
Waldorf 2012/06/12 16:56:12
They hysterically shriek: ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Increase Homicides!!!!"
Relying on the stupid to continue not to use facts, logic and reason.
Here is a few examples what would be counted as "Increase Homicides!!!!":
You are in church, when a lunatic come through the doors shooting members of the congregation; if one of the members had returned fire and killed the POS: That would be counted in the "Increase Homicides!!!!"
If you were on your way home from the movie with your wife and small children. Then at a red-light a punk stick a gun in your face and demands your money and your car. Your wife and small children are in the vehicle, he points his gun and threatens to shoot one of the children . . . and you fire 2 rounds into his face at the bridge of his nose: That would be counted in the "Increase Homicides!!!!"
Had it been in Florida, when Thomas Glenn Terry went to dinner with his wife, at Shoney's Family Restaurant in Anniston, Alabama, and his wife was take as one of the 21 hostages held in the walk-in cooler. Mr. Terry's killing of one of the 3 robbers that day would have been counted in the "Increase Homicides!!!!"
While *NO ONE*, except for Liberal/P...
They hysterically shriek: ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Increase Homicides!!!!"
Relying on the stupid to continue not to use facts, logic and reason.
Here is a few examples what would be counted as "Increase Homicides!!!!":
You are in church, when a lunatic come through the doors shooting members of the congregation; if one of the members had returned fire and killed the POS: That would be counted in the "Increase Homicides!!!!"
If you were on your way home from the movie with your wife and small children. Then at a red-light a punk stick a gun in your face and demands your money and your car. Your wife and small children are in the vehicle, he points his gun and threatens to shoot one of the children . . . and you fire 2 rounds into his face at the bridge of his nose: That would be counted in the "Increase Homicides!!!!"
Had it been in Florida, when Thomas Glenn Terry went to dinner with his wife, at Shoney's Family Restaurant in Anniston, Alabama, and his wife was take as one of the 21 hostages held in the walk-in cooler. Mr. Terry's killing of one of the 3 robbers that day would have been counted in the "Increase Homicides!!!!"
While *NO ONE*, except for Liberal/Progressives, would consider any of these homicide examples to be a "bad thing", they would all be homicides.
We are mislead by these bits of thoughtlessness, but let's look at them one at a time using logic and reason:
• Remove a person’s duty to retreat in places outside the home
Would you *REALLY* want your loved one to allow their assailant to attack their less defensible *BACK*, rather than face their attacker and end the violent attack?
• Add the presumption that the person who killed in self defense had a reasonable fear of death or harm.
Let's look at this using the accusation of another serious crime: If *YOU* were accused of raping a woman, shouldn't the prosecution be required to prove that a rape actually took place, as oppose to consensual sex?
If you were charged with car theft, shouldn't the prosecution be required to prove that the care you were driving when you were stopped . . . was indeed stolen?
• Grant people who killed in self-defense immunity from civil lawsuits
THINK PEOPLE!
If someone broke into your daughter home, beat her, and tried to rape her; when she managed to grab a gun and killed the POS
Do you *HONESTLY* believe, the POS's next of kin should be able to sue her for saving her own life?
And why should someone who was forced to save their own life, be victimized a second time in civil court? That is INSANE!
Each criminal that dies in the commission of their crime, makes society just a little bit safer, and just a little bit BETTER!
"I have a dream!
A dream where instead of reading about a cute college coed left dead and naked out in a vacant lot or bloated and floating in a river, the story reads, “dead jackass found double-tapped and dead on the curb as his soul wings its way to hell, all because he messed with the wrong mama.”
-Doug Giles
"As the authors note, the increase in homicides may not be viewed by everyone as “unambiguously bad.” It could be driven by individuals protecting themselves from imminent harm by using lethal force".
I am a firm believer in the old adage of "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
There will be instances where those that expect to use this law as their defense for shooting someone will have overstepped the bounds of the law. But I truthfully feel that there will be more people who live through a violent ordeal against them that will benefit. I remember a study when many states started passing CCW laws. The study stated violence would increase and there would be shoot outs in the streets. The study was completely wrong. According to FBI statistics violent crimes have dimininished in many states where CCW laws were passed.
But in all reality there will be studies stating the laws are detrimental and studies stating the laws are beneficial. What I find unacceptable is that the study more than likely cost some exorbitant amount of money that was funded by the government in one way or another. An example would be the over $3 million spent on studying shrimp on treadmills.
The "rules" regarding self defense have always insisted that if you have an opportunity to escape a dangerous situation rather than killing someone you should do so. Stand your ground truly does plant the notion in the minds of people like George Zimmerman that they don't even have to make an effort to avoid killing someone, whether it is ultimately justified or not.
Please provide the law (for every state since you blanketed it in your statement) of the rules regarding self defense. If you cannot provide the proof you are stating nothing but personal opinon and it holds no validity. Stand your ground lets you know that if you are in a situation where you are facing personal injury and death and the only option you have is to kill the person threatening you then you are justified in doing so. I have talked to many people and had the discussion with numerous individuals taking CCW courses and not a one of them felt as you do.
Furthermore until the case is tried and all the evidence is layed out no one knows if Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin or not. Again you are stating a personal opinon in your assumption that he wasn't. I find the fact that a life was lost to be a terrible thing. But I find trying Zimmerman in the media and turning the incident into a racial matter to be despicable. Remember, in our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Your being judge, jury and executioneer without the facts does nothing for your case.
You state: "Whether you think Zimmerman is a murderer or that he was justified in shooting Martin, the fact is that if Zimmerman didn't BELIEVE that he could claim stand your ground he would not have shot Martin."
You actually believe, that had there been no SYG law, Zimmerman would have simply allowed Martin beat him to death?!
I don't understand how even a Progressive, could believe such rubbish.