Do Stand Your Ground Laws Help or Hurt Crime Rates?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We need a longer time period and better research protocols. The paper (by two TX profs at A&M) is not in a peer viewed journal, IIRC. It is a working piece.

Let it go to a major criminology or economics journal, like Kleck's work.

As far as needing to get tenure - are you kidding - they work at TX A&M - the only thing that counts for tenure is research and grants.

 

[zukiphile]

Beyond the statistical problems, the article rests on other dubious observations.

These findings concur with the personal experiences of former Monitor columnist Water Rogers, who spent decades in war zones around the world. He had loaded guns pointed at his head more than once and observed gun violence firsthand. “Stand Your Ground laws are perilous,” he said in an April column. “They get people killed, because they substitute impulse for intelligent thought.”

It seems unlikely that a person under threat would think "This is an enormously dangerous situation I'm in, but I won't try to avoid danger because I am armed".

Further,

The long-accepted “duty to retreat” standard allows time and opportunity for violence to be avoided. “Stand your ground” may demand a split-second decision that even trained law-enforcement officers find challenging, and invites tragedy.

It seems too obvious to note that being in doubt of one's right to use force in his own defense can also invite tragedy.

One can imagine a poorly drafted SYG law that could invite violencve between those who merely misunderstand one another, but that doesn't seem a frequent problem. The more routine scenario seems to involve people who correctly understand that they are threatened and respond.

The only issue at that point is whether they should be prosecuted. Statistics can't address that.

 

[BlueTrain]

Whatever action you decide to take or not take, you'll probably have made the decision in a matter of seconds. The jury will have all the time they want to decide if it was the right decision.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank: there is also Intentional, premeditated and without malice. Probably not a legal distinction, but Kevorkian and abuse excuses would fit that description....

Yes, that is not a legal distinction. These are not separate types of homicides. See my definitions in post 18 again:

... A homicide can be --

1. Accidental;
2. Negligent;
3. The result of reckless (or willful, wanton and reckless) conduct;
4. Intentional without malice (evil intent);
5. Intentional with malice; and
6. Intentional, premeditated and with malice.

...
...

Homicides [3] - [6] are crimes: involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, and first degree murder, respectively....

"Intentional", "premeditated", and/or "malice" are elements of the definitions of various criminal homicides.