The Difference Between The Castle Doctrine And Stand Your Ground Law

1648 Words 7 Pages
The key points in determining the lawfulness of force is self-defense or the defense of another are unlawfulness, necessity, and reasonableness. The use of force by one person against another is a violation of the criminal law unless some justification for the use of exist. Courts or juries determine what use of force is necessary they will take into account of the size age parties in relation to and the instrument or weapon used the beliefs has to be reasonable but doesn’t need to be correct. For instance The Supreme Court cautioned courts examining excessive force claims that "the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments–in circumstances that …show more content…
The castle doctrine is a doctrine that allows you to permit people who have been assaulted in their home by an trespasser to stand their ground and use such force as reasonable and necessary to defend themselves. The castle doctrine does not require a lawful occupant in the home to retreat when they are confronted by a tresspassing person or a person that isn’t residing in that home or property.As for stand your ground a homeonwer has a reasonsable fear of imminent peril or death whenever another person is unlawfully and forcefully enters a dwelling, Either way if you look at it the main difference is one protects you to defend yourself if threated and other deals with you defending your home. if your state has a Stand Your Ground Law then you do not have a duty to retreat if assaulted in any place you have the right to be, including public areas. If your state only has a Castle Law, then this only applies when you’re in your home (or in some states, your vehicle). An example for castle doctrine is it sometimes does not apply to conflicts between two people who live in the same house. And Florida’s Stand Your Ground …show more content…
S. Constitution prohibits the government from prosecuting individuals more than one time for a single offense and from imposing more than one punishment for a single offense, If the same conduct violates two criminal statutes successive prosecution were barred even though the statues had different elements. Under this doctrine, the Supreme Court has ruled in a series of cases that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee to the citizens of every state the right to exercise certain fundamental liberties. States with all recourse and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense.Double jeopardy is our fifth amendment to a prosecution on the grounds that the defendant has been tried before on the same charges and acquitted. There has been many case that the jeopardy clause has made its presnces.One good case would be U.S v. Lara the supreme court of the U.S in 2004 conviction tribal court under the tribe 's sovereign power and thus did not prevent the government from charging the defendant for the same conduct under federal law in federal court. In a recent case in 2013 where a dallas man goes free for murder charges because of the double jeopardy clause.Charging Sharon Sylvester Brown, 61, would violate the "double jeopardy" standard because he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault against Sherry

Related Documents