The home in which citizens reside in is referred to as a “castle”, where the King and/or Queen must defend their grounds. From English Common Law, laws were derived to protect those who owned a home from defenseless harm or injury. Such laws, often referred to as “Castle Doctrine” or “stand-your-ground” laws, justify the harmful force of killing as a means of defense. Castle Doctrine laws inevitably pose a thought of linked homicide, where these laws allow citizens to legally commit homicide. Arguably, homicide is the unlawful killing with intention, where citizens are aware of the harm at hand. Killing through defense under the Castle Doctrine laws is justifiably an excuse for citizens to commit homicide. The act of self-defense can be questionable,
…show more content…
Is the duty to retreat enough? Does a citizen have justifiable reasons to retreat, or does a citizen have justifiable reasons to kill? If the justification to retreat poses a safe escape, the necessity to kill does not exist. Ultimately, the Castle Doctrine is backing-up a murderer. This doctrine encourages a victim to commit homicide. These laws simply say, “We are on your side if you decide (intentionally and personally) that you are in serious danger and need to retreat to killing an individual that has broken into your home to steal your jewelry box.” The lenience of the judicial system is unjust. Who is to say that the intruder intended to kill? Is there a guideline to decide whether an intruder had to intention to kill? Madison (2014) said the following:
“One driving force behind the backlash against stand your ground laws is that the laws supposedly leave no room for the possibility that victims might make a mistake- that victims could choose to stand their ground and respond with deadly force when an attacker does not intend to kill them” (p.160).
To avoid the conflict of deciding whether an intruder had the intention to kill, retreating would be the sound option. However, in certain states such as Florida, “stand your ground” is unlikely. In order for a law to be effective, states need to be on the same page. Most times, this is not the case. With such a universal doctrine, the Castle Doctrine must have set guidelines to follow, or not be enforced at
Is the duty to retreat enough? Does a citizen have justifiable reasons to retreat, or does a citizen have justifiable reasons to kill? If the justification to retreat poses a safe escape, the necessity to kill does not exist. Ultimately, the Castle Doctrine is backing-up a murderer. This doctrine encourages a victim to commit homicide. These laws simply say, “We are on your side if you decide (intentionally and personally) that you are in serious danger and need to retreat to killing an individual that has broken into your home to steal your jewelry box.” The lenience of the judicial system is unjust. Who is to say that the intruder intended to kill? Is there a guideline to decide whether an intruder had to intention to kill? Madison (2014) said the following:
“One driving force behind the backlash against stand your ground laws is that the laws supposedly leave no room for the possibility that victims might make a mistake- that victims could choose to stand their ground and respond with deadly force when an attacker does not intend to kill them” (p.160).
To avoid the conflict of deciding whether an intruder had the intention to kill, retreating would be the sound option. However, in certain states such as Florida, “stand your ground” is unlikely. In order for a law to be effective, states need to be on the same page. Most times, this is not the case. With such a universal doctrine, the Castle Doctrine must have set guidelines to follow, or not be enforced at