The American Constitution provision several provisions that allow people to exercise their liberties and live freely in the country, such as the Bill of Rights. These principles have become the foundation of the ethical and security issues many citizens have to experience in their respective societies. People in different regions encounter numerous challenges despite the fact that the Constitution outlines their freedoms and legal protections. For instance, criminal acts and abuses occur frequently, thereby resulting in property destruction, loss of precious possessions, and sometimes death. In such circumstances, “stand your ground laws” are evidence-based in nature and protect Americans against physical injuries and emotional abuses even when the threat continues after even after retreating. This argumentative paper describes the nature of this controversial topic and supports such laws as effective in safeguarding citizens’ lives.
Brief Analysis of Stand Your Ground Laws
The current law is designed in such a way that it allows people to now property and use them to pursue their personal and economic goals. They will have a right to be in their homes at all times and without any form of external threat. However, criminal acts will threaten people even when they are in their vehicles or facilities (Humphreys et al., 2017). In the presence of some form of danger that appears to intimidate them, it becomes necessary to engage in personal defense. They can go further to protect their children or assets from any form of abuse. This kind of knowledge is the founding principle or definition of stand your ground law. People will not have the chance to retreat from an asset or home they own (Humphreys et al., 2017). When some criminals or individuals decide to threaten their lives or peace, it would be permissible for such potential victims to apply any force at their disposal (Wolfe & Walker, 2019). Such a practice makes it easier for them to prevent any further or possible damage or even loss of life.
The castle doctrine has become a famous model that informs different aspects of modern law. For instance, this concept reveals that human beings should not retreat into their castles or homes in the event of extreme danger. Consequently, they will be permitted to apply lethal force or response to protect their relatives, resources, and even property. The doctrine goes further to allow individuals to consider the necessity of retreating when in public (Humphreys et al., 2017). This type of dogma has continued to play a significant role in many criminal cases.
Effectiveness and Advantages
The sole purpose of stand your ground policies is to ensure that people can protect themselves when they face danger in situations whereby the law does not allow them to withdraw. In states or countries that have permitted such guidelines, many citizens find it easier to respond with brutal force and protect themselves or their assets (Humphreys et al., 2017). Scholars can view this kind of law as effective since it guides citizens to act when that is the last option or chance they have in protecting themselves. In some instances, an individual can retreat but the abuser or criminal still follow him or her (Humphreys et al., 2017). In such a scenario, the targeted person would not be culpable or guilty after using brutal force as a form of personal defense. The effectiveness and applicability of this law explains why it has become useful in many countries across the world today.
The nature of these laws makes them beneficial to many individuals in the United States. The first undeniable benefit is that they empower citizens living in high-crime neighborhoods or urban centers to protect themselves against imminent danger (Fieldstadt, 2019). Those in their homes would be unable to retreat and watch as someone steals or murders their children. This unique advantage explains why many stakeholders continue to support or favor such laws. The second benefit revolves around the weakness and effectiveness of policing. In different regions, those in law enforcement are expected to respond to stress calls and provide equal protection to all members of the public (Fieldstadt, 2019). Unfortunately, such professionals would usually take long before arriving at a specific scene. With the support of stand your ground regulations, individuals can manage to launch appropriate defense. The adoption of these guidelines has, therefore, met the demands of many American citizens.
Some of the latest studies completed in the areas of justice and criminology have presented interesting statistics that support the use of stand your ground laws. For instance, Wolfe and Walker (2019) observed that around 4,000 citizens were losing their lives every year due to injuries associated with guns. Similarly, over 10,000 people sustained either non-fatal or fatal wounds (Wolfe & Walker, 2019). These occurrences continue to encourage states and policymakers in the country to consider the role and importance of such policies.
Problems with Such Laws
The validity of stand your ground remains a contentious topic in different regions across the US. Several states have gone further to implement similar laws that allow citizens to protect themselves using any force at their disposal when threatened by criminals or other members of the society. A good example is that of Florida which has been applying such laws for over 25 years (Morral & Smart, 2019). Unfortunately, the current research or information fails to offer clear insights regarding these regulations’ ability to minimize criminal behaviors and protect lives.
Fortunately, some skeptics have presented superior arguments to explain why stand your ground laws might remain problematic. For instance, Humphreys et al. (2017) indicate that such policies encourage citizens to engage in malpractices that can result in the death of innocent or less dangerous people. One of the outstanding legal cases that have taken this debate to another level is that of Michael Drejka (Fieldstadt, 2019). This individual ended up murdering Markeis McGlockton after quarrelling over a parking spot (Fieldstadt, 2019). The victim did not have any weapon while Drejka used the opportunity to shoot first. From the nature of this occurrence, it remains quite clear that the stand your grand laws might be problematic since they can encourage people to use brutal force in unjustifiable circumstances.
The second issue or challenge with these frameworks is that they dilute the gun control question. Over the years, many stakeholders have been focusing on superior measures to introduce stringent measures aimed at reducing the number of people who can acquire licensed firearms. According to Morral and Smart (2019), the United States had the highest number of deaths arising from gun-related violence at 82 percent in 2018. This kind of malpractice affected children and women the most since they were unable to protect themselves. The availability and presence of more weapons in the hands of the people is a major obstacle towards implementing superior gun control laws. Similarly, Humphreys et al. (2017) indicated that every 100 Americans possessed a total of around 120 guns. This means that the country was having many weapons that different criminals and individuals with malicious intent would use to kill or injure others. With these statistics, it becomes quite clear that the country should be thinking of new ways of reducing the number of such firearms while at the same time tightening the gun application process. However, such an objective would remain unachievable due to the validity of stand your ground laws.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution remains a favorite section for many people in support of stand your ground policies. They argue that all Americans have the right to possess and use weapons to protect their assets and lives when necessary (Humphreys et al., 2017). On the other hand, some individuals and human rights activists have been concerned and worried about the increasing number of shootings targeting learning institutions. For instance, Wolfe and Walker (2019) observed that the United States recorded around 45 school shootings in 2019 alone. The same trend was also recorded in the previous year whereby many unsuspecting learners lost their lives with others sustaining both life-threatening and non-threatening injuries (Wolfe & Walker, 2019). These developments reveal that the concepts of the castle doctrine have continued to undermine those of gun control. Consequently, the country might take long before finding a common ground and ensuring that more lives are protected than ever before.
Arguments and Recommendations
The above descriptions have revealed that the use of stand your ground laws is an evidence-based practice that borrows a lot from the historical developments of the United States. Having gone through several wars and revolutions, America became a nation that allowed its citizens to possess and use weapons for personal defense against the unpredictable enemy (Wolfe & Walker, 2019). The successes and victories recorded in most of the wars became a reason for the people to celebrate. With the founding fathers being aware of their past experiences and future expectations, they chose to include the possession and acquisition of a gun as a fundamental right (Morral & Smart, 2019). Consequently, this historical reality created new opportunities for conceiving additional policies to support and dictate the manner in which Americans protected themselves against any threat.
The notions and legal concepts behind gun ownership have dominated all discussions revolving around stand your ground principles. The history of the country has also supported the importance of self-defense against any an unknown enemy. With this kind of information, it would be appropriate for all stakeholders to consider the importance of stand your ground laws and apply them in a professional manner. The emergence of doctrine laws was a move aimed at ensuring that people in their castles or homes could not be forced to retreat in accordance with the established Constitution (Humphreys et al., 2017). Instead, it was right and crucial for them to apply brutal force and repel the enemy. The acceptance of such an idea is necessary in the present world due to the increasing number of cases revolving around homicides and criminal acts.
While supporting the use of stand your ground laws, it would be necessary for all key stakeholders to consider the idea that some people will use the existing loopholes to murder others without a valid reason or in the absence of danger. When such a scenario happens, it would always be appropriate for people to apply the law impartially and eventually serve justice to the victim. Citizens need to go a step further to consider the arguments in favor of these regulations and consider the historical developments associated with them (Humphreys et al., 2017). Such a strategy will make it easier for Americans to collaborate with the government and implement appropriate gun control policies while at the same time retaining the privileges outlined in the Second Amendment. Individuals who have firearms should stop engaging in malpractices that can result in the loss of lives by applying brutal force only when they face real danger (Bosman, 2019). These measures and ideas will create a peaceful nation with less deaths and empowered citizens who can respond to threats accordingly.
Conclusion
The above discussion has identified stand your ground laws as superior policies informed by the historical developments of the United States and the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Although the completed study has revealed that such policies are advantageous and capable of protecting the greatest number of citizens, they still worsen the situation for some Americans. The involvement of all key stakeholders is an evidence-based approach that will result in better laws that resonate with the expectations of the greatest number of individuals. In conclusion, this country requires a balanced perspective to overcome the current problems and ensure that the government protects more lives.
References
- Bosman, J. (2019). Here’s a list of school shootings in 2019. The New York Times.
- Fieldstadt, E. (2019). Florida man who shot unarmed man in parking space dispute sentenced to 20 years. NBC News. Web.
- Humphreys, D. K., Gasparrini, A., & Wiebe, D. J. (2017). Association between enactment of a “stand your ground” self-defense law and unlawful homicides in Florida. JAMA Internal Medicine, 177(10), 1523-1524.
- Morral, A. R., & Smart, R. (2019). ‘Stand your ground’ laws may be causing more harm than good. Rand Corporation. Web.
- Wolfe, E., & Walker, C. (2019). In 46 weeks this year, there have been 45 school shootings. CNN.