According to the castle doctrine, stand-yours-ground laws stipulate that individuals can reasonably use force, including deadly force to protect themselves when attacked by any intruder at their home. Stand-your-ground laws are an extreme appendage of the castle doctrine in that they allow individuals to use reasonable force, not only when attacked at home but at any place that they rightfully should be (NCSL, 2023). The implication is that individuals can use such force at work, in public, or anywhere they rightfully are. According to the stand-your-ground laws, an individual not unlawful and is at a place they rightfully need to be should stand their ground and meet force by force when attacked. A person of such kind should not be obligated to retreat. Stand-your-ground laws are currently in force in more than 28 states, including Puerto Rico. The paper analyzes the history of Stand-your-ground-laws, their legality and legal principles, the application of the laws in Florida, and the advantages and disadvantages of these laws.

Stand-Your-Ground Laws- History in Florida

Castle doctrine which originated in 1604 acts as the foundation of stand-your-ground laws (Light, 2017). The doctrine was an exception to the British common law stating that people had no obligation to retreat. According to the doctrine, since one's home is their castle, they have no obligation to retreat when attacked. In America, the self-defense implied by the castle doctrine was expanded to places away from home in the 1870s after court cases in Ohio and Indiana (Light, 2017). The courts obligated men not to retreat when attacked, even in places away from home. The earlier self-defense laws in America imposed the duty to retreat generally. In the 19^th century, however, local state courts and the US Supreme Court opinions led to the development of stand-your-ground doctrine. The law ended up becoming an essential element in self-defense.

According to WLRN (2018), stand-your-own laws were first approved in the United States in the State of Florida in 2005. Under these laws, an individual did not have a responsibility to retreat and had permission to use lethal force if believed to be in danger. Before this law was passed in Florida, people had to flight when challenged with lethal force. The passing of these laws in Florida started as an NRA Bill, and its endorsement was a swift process considering that Florida’s legislature was Republican-dominated. Since the endorsement of this law in Florida, several high-profile arguments have emerged, such as the shooting of Trayvon Martin, a teenager who was not armed (WLRN, 2018). As a result, several people in Florida are determined to revoke the stand-your-ground laws in Florida.

Legality and Legal Principles

The laws are based on the principle of self-defense. The primary argument is that every law-abiding citizen has the right to defend themselves when they are unreasonably attacked. However, they are an extreme and lethal form of castle doctrine as they categorically state that an unrightfully and unreasonably attacked has no duty to retreat (Ward, 2015). This provision allows the individual to meet violence with violence or retreat. With America being filled with guns among civilians, these laws allow individuals to carry guns wherever they go as they do not know where and when they might be attacked. While self-defense is called for, lawmakers should consider the conflict between the laws and human rights.

The Laws in Florida
 

Florida is among the states that have enacted the laws. The law expanded the reach of self-defense in different ways. They eliminated common law's general duty to retreat, presumed legal use of force in one's residence and car, and offered legal immunity for people who use such force (Catalfamo, 2016). According to the law, an individual is justified to use even extreme force to prevent their death or the death of another individual or bodily harm. They should use force to prevent the commission of such a felony. While most provisions have been in common law, the new law deviates from common law because there is no obligation to flight. It states that provided one is doing what is lawful and rightfully where they are, they should stand their ground when attacked or threatened (Guettabi & Munasib, 2017). Prosecutorial immunity is another deviation from common law in that provided the individual acts in self-defense according to the statute's provisions; they are immune to prosecution.

Pros and Cons

The laws have advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages is that the laws allow individuals to protect themselves optimally without fear of prosecution. By offering immunity from prosecution, the law assures individuals that they have the right to self-defense, and they should, with no fear that the outcome will lead to prosecution. Secondly, the laws deter unauthorized entry to people's residences, cars, and other properties by assuring the potential offenders that by so doing, they can be harmed or killed with no possible prosecution for the killer. Thirdly, the laws offer the attacked individual a choice to retreat or stand their ground when threatened. This is a correction to the initial self-defense laws, which prevented people from acting irrespective of the urgency and intensity of their situation. Lastly, the laws protect individuals whose crime was only self-defense from prosecution.

Disadvantages revolve around understanding and application of the laws. First, due to their vagueness and poor description, the public and the jury do not understand the laws and what they protect and thus feel the gaps using their knowledge. This leads to potential misuse of the laws. A good example is the exaggerated gun debates in the United States. Secondly, the laws encourage violence since they allow threatened people to act violently instead of considering the importance of retreating. Thirdly, the laws have been said to promote racism and divisiveness in America. For example, a shooting involving black and white people attracts racially inspired debates. Lastly, the laws encourage fatal force, which contrasts human right to live.

Opinion on the laws

Laws are meant to promote peace and harmony in a country. Self-defense is necessary. How stand-your-ground laws define self-defense is questionable because they need to consider the importance of retreating. According to the framing of the laws, retreating is not part of selfdefense. The laws do not consider the fact that, while using force, the self-defender can be harmed or even killed. The laws do not also consider the violence they encourage and the misinterpretation of the statutes by the public. The original common laws that obligated the responsibility to withdrawal when there is a retreat route are better off than the stand-yourground laws.

References

Catalfamo, C. (2016). Stand Your Ground: Florida’s Castle Doctrine for the Twenty-First

Century. Rutgers Journal of Law and Public Policy, 4, 504. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/rutjulp4&div

=21&id=&page=

Guettabi, M., & Munasib, A. (2017). Stand Your Ground laws, homicides and gun deaths.

Regional Studies, 52(9), 1250–1260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1371846

Light, C. (2017). Stand Your Ground: A History of America’s Love Affair with Lethal Self-

Defense. In Google Books. Beacon Press. https://books.google.co.ke/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=IozmDQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=History+of++

%E2%80%9CStand+Your+Ground%E2%80%9D+Law&ots=2H_6Vo9M4v&sig=r30UnLngbErR9eZiaH3eLe6-Ik&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=History%20of

%20%20%E2%80%9CStand%20Your%20Ground%E2%80%9D%20Law&f=false

Ward, C. (2015). Stand Your Ground" and Self Defense. Faculty Publications. 1800.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1800

WLRN. (2018, May 28). Harvard Professor’s Book Explores History Of “Stand Your Ground” Laws. WLRN. https://www.wlrn.org/news/2018-05-28/harvard-professors-bookexplores-history-of-stand-your-ground-laws