Should States Execute Law Breakers?

The death penalty is a highly controversial topic, with some arguing that it is a necessary form of punishment for certain crimes, while others believe it is a violation of human rights. In the United States, the death penalty is legal in 27 states, and three federal systems, with varying methods of execution, including lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, and firing squad. While the death penalty is still practiced, the number of executions has decreased significantly in recent years, with only 11 people executed in 2022. This raises the question of whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent, or if it is simply a form of retribution. Additionally, the application of the death penalty is not without error, as evidenced by the exoneration of individuals on death row due to new evidence or DNA testing. This prompts further ethical considerations regarding the use of capital punishment as a form of criminal justice.

Shoot First laws, also known as Stand Your Ground laws

Shoot First laws are associated with increases in homicide rates, resulting in 700 additional homicides nationwide each year. Florida's Shoot First law was associated with a 45% increase in monthly firearm homicide rates among white residents and a 23% increase among Black residents. Young adults between the ages of 20 and 34 years were most impacted by the state's Shoot First law, with a 36% increase in monthly firearm homicide rates following the implementation of the law.

Shoot First laws distort the public perception of lawful self-defence and encourage people to shoot first and ask questions later. These laws allow people to shoot to kill in public even when they can safely walk away from danger. They have created a culture of violence, allowing armed extremists to shoot anyone they fear or suspect and claim self-defence. This results in more senseless deaths.

Shoot First laws also disproportionately affect people of colour. In 57% of Florida Shoot First cases, the person who claimed self-defence could have safely retreated to avoid the confrontation. In Shoot First states, homicides in which white shooters kill Black victims are deemed justifiable five times more frequently than when the situation is reversed. Shoot First laws put Black people and people of colour at further risk of hate-fuelled violence.

Self-defence laws

In the United States, self-defence is an affirmative defence that justifies the use of force by one person against another under specific circumstances. The general rule is that a person may use such force as is reasonably necessary to defend themselves against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another. In cases involving non-deadly force, this means that the person must reasonably believe that their use of force was necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful physical harm. When the use of deadly force is involved, the person must reasonably believe that it is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death.

Stand Your Ground laws, also known as Shoot First laws, allow a person to use deadly force and even kill another person in a public area without attempting to de-escalate the situation, even if they could have done so safely. These laws have been criticised for distorting the public perception of lawful self-defence and encouraging people to shoot first without considering other options. Florida's Stand Your Ground law, for example, has been associated with a 24% increase in monthly homicide rates and a 32% increase in monthly firearm homicide rates.

In most states, there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defence. However, the duty to retreat may be relevant to the reasonableness of the use of deadly force if there is no explicit statutory law removing this duty. For example, Oregon does not have a Stand Your Ground law, and a person may defend themselves or a third person, their property, or prevent an escape. The key idea is that the force used is reasonable and that the perception of a threat of serious physical injury or death is reasonable.

In California, the law states that a person may use no more force than is reasonably necessary to defend themselves. This means that the person must reasonably believe that they were in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury and that the immediate use of force was necessary. Similarly, in Oregon, the use of force must be proportional to the threat. For example, responding with a gun to a person wielding a feather duster would likely be considered disproportionate.

In some jurisdictions, there is an imperfect self-defence rule, where an individual who mistakenly believed they were justified in using deadly force in self-defence may have a murder conviction reduced to manslaughter. Additionally, a person who was the initial aggressor cannot claim self-defence unless they abandon the combat or the other party responds with excessive force.

The castle doctrine

The term is most commonly used in the United States, although many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws. Depending on the location, a person may have a duty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines lessen the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted within their own home.

In the 18th century, many US state legal systems began by importing English common law, such as Acts of Parliament. According to 18th-century biblical commentator Matthew Henry, the prohibition of murder found in the Old Testament contains an exception for legitimate self-defence. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed.

> "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the thief owes no blood-debt to the home defender; but if the thief lives, he owes a blood-debt to the home defender and must make restitution."

The use of deadly force

The "stand your ground" law, which is similar to the castle doctrine, states that a person can use deadly force anywhere, as long as they are not engaged in unlawful activity, are in a place they have a right to be, and reasonably believe their life and safety are in danger. This law eliminates the duty to retreat, even if a person can avoid danger by retreating. Shoot First laws, also known as Stand Your Ground laws, have been criticised for distorting the public perception of lawful self-defence and encouraging people to shoot first without attempting to de-escalate the situation.

In California, the law states that a person may use no more force than is reasonably necessary to defend themselves. This means that a person must reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury and that the immediate use of force is necessary to defend against that danger. The use of force must be proportionate to the danger posed, as judged by a jury.

In New York, the law allows for the use of deadly force in self-defence if a person reasonably believes another person is using or about to use deadly physical force. However, New York also requires a "duty to retreat," meaning that a person must attempt to avoid the use of deadly force by retreating from the situation if it is safe to do so.

It is important to note that the use of deadly force is a complex and nuanced issue, and the specific laws and doctrines may vary depending on the state and the circumstances of each case.

Criminal charges and convictions

Criminal charges are formal accusations by prosecutors alleging involvement in criminal conduct. Being charged does not imply guilt but indicates that there is sufficient evidence for a prosecutor to bring a case to court. An investigation is conducted by law enforcement, where they collect evidence, interview witnesses, and build a case to support the allegations. Once the investigation is complete, the prosecutor reviews the evidence and decides whether to file formal charges. If they proceed, the accused is notified and required to appear in court for an arraignment. It is important to note that being charged with a crime marks the beginning of a legal process where the accused's rights and future are at stake.

Convictions, on the other hand, occur when the court finds the accused guilty, either through a plea or a trial. The judicial branch, including judges and juries, plays a crucial role in providing fair trials and interpreting criminal law. Judges and juries hear the evidence presented at trial and decide on guilt or innocence. In cases of conviction, judges typically follow sentencing guidelines to determine the appropriate punishment.

The specific elements of criminal charges and convictions can vary depending on state and federal laws. While some jurisdictions have clearly defined crimes in modern penal codes, others rely on common law principles. Criminal laws describe prohibited conduct, the mental state or intent required for guilt, and the possible punishments for offences. These can include felony offenses, such as first-degree murder, grand theft, sexual abuse, and drug crimes, which often carry severe consequences, including prison sentences. Additionally, certain crimes, such as sexual violence, require offenders to register their addresses after conviction.

It is worth noting that self-defence is a commonly used affirmative defence. Individuals may be charged with violent offences but claim they acted to defend themselves, others, or their property. The justifiable use of force or deadly force is determined by factors such as the reasonable belief of imminent danger and the necessity of force to prevent it.

Frequently asked questions