Stand Your Ground Study Results - Higher Homicide Rates

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

andrsnsm

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
3,497
Reaction score
230
Location
Edmond
I have not read the full study but I thought I would share this with you kids. The results could be very bad for those of us that believe in the Stand Your Ground laws.

http://liberalarts.tamu.edu/html/ne...th-stand-your-ground-laws-research-finds.html

Homicide rates increase in states with 'stand your ground' laws, research finds

6/13/12
The death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin in February spurred a national debate about the so-called "stand your ground" law or "castle doctrine," which expands grounds for the justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense.

In a recent Texas A&M University study, Mark Hoekstra, an associate professor in the Department of Economics, and Cheng Cheng, a doctoral student in the department, made two significant observations: while stronger self-defense laws did not deter burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault, in states with stand your ground laws, homicide rates increased by seven to nine percent (or 500 to 700 more homicides per year across 23 states).

In 2005, Florida became the first state to legally expand self-defense protections by removing the duty to retreat before using lethal force outside one's own home, as well as by adding other provisions that address civil liability and a "presumption of reasonable fear" when acting in self-defense. Twenty-two other states have passed similar laws, though some are more restrictive than others.

The term "castle doctrine" comes from the English common law principle that people have no duty to retreat before using lethal force in self-defense when in their own home, or castle. The purpose of the laws is to help victims better protect themselves against violent crime.

For their study, Hoekstra and Cheng analyzed state-level crime data from 2000 to 2009 from FBI Uniform Crime Reports. They began their initial investigation last summer, well before the Trayvon Martin case pushed self-defense laws into the spotlight.

To the untrained eye, their research doesn't fall into a category of traditional economics, but Hoekstra says it is all about incentives.

"When you change self-defense law, you change incentives. You change the incentives of people protecting themselves - now it's lower cost to use lethal force, for example, after a state passes a castle doctrine law," Hoekstra said. "So on the one hand you might expect to get more lethal force because you lowered the cost and on the other hand you might expect to get less crime because you raised the expected cost to criminals."

But as Hoekstra found, the results indicated only that there was an increase in the use of lethal force. The main question now, Hoekstra says, is why homicides increased.

"I think there are several reasonable explanations for why homicides would go up, but I'm not sure which one is true," he said. "It could be that the increase in homicides is driven by an increase in self-defense killings. On the other hand, it could be that the increase in homicides is due to an escalation of violence in otherwise nonviolent situations."

Hoekstra and Cheng plan to investigate the nature of the data in the future. They aim to contact the states directly to learn more about the homicide victims and whether or not they have criminal backgrounds. But they don't know whether or not all of the data they need will be available.

The authors predict that their findings will have significant policy implications. They conclude their report by stating that "an informed debate over these laws will weigh the increased protection offered to law-abiding citizens against the increase in homicide that results from the laws."

The full paper is available through The National Bureau of Economic Research and on the Department of Economics website.
 

SMS

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
15,322
Reaction score
4,279
Location
OKC area
I would expect Justifiable homicides to go up...that's not a bad thing. The article has the misleading tone that all homicides are bad.

I haven't read the whole study yet...did they differentiate between murder/manslaughter and justifiable homicide?
 
B

Bill Mac

Guest
I would be interested to see what their eventual future research points out as to whether the homicides were in actual self defense and in whether the perps or victims of the homicides had prior criminal records. We all know from the recent loud music shooting fiasco that there are idiots who just use the Castle Doctrine to further their supposed justifiable use of deadly force. There will always be those types. The Trayvon Martin shooting while tragic is also someone doing something that he shouldn't have been doing while armed. I doubt that Zimmerman would have followed Martin if he had not been armed and would have waited for police or at least followed Martin without engaging him to see what he was up to. I did not read this study, but having an increase in deaths where people are allowed to protect themselves without retreating when someone attacks or threatens is an obvious result of a lessened fear of prosecution.
 

vvvvvvv

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
12,284
Reaction score
65
Location
Nowhere
I would expect Justifiable homicides to go up...that's not a bad thing. The article has the misleading tone that all homicides are bad.

I haven't read the whole study yet...did they differentiate between murder/manslaughter and justifiable homicide?

"First we investigate whether the laws increase justifiable homicide by private
citizens. Importantly, justifiable homicide is defined as “the killing of a felon, during the
commission of a felony, by a private citizen”. This FBI classification explicitly excludes
homicides when there was no other felony being committed, even if the homicide was
justified under current self-defense law" - page 2

"Suggestive but inconclusive evidence indicates that castle doctrine laws increase the
narrowly defined category of justifiable homicides by private citizens by 17 to 50 percent,
which translates into as many as 50 additional justifiable homicides per year nationally due
to castle doctrine. More significantly, we find the laws increase murder and manslaughter
by a statistically significant 7 to 9 percent, which translates into an additional 500 to 700
homicides per year nationally across the states that adopted castle doctrine. " - page 4

"An example of what would NOT
qualify as a justifiable homicide is “While playing cards, two men got into an argument. The first man attacked the
second with a broken bottle. The second man pulled a gun and killed his attacker. The police arrested the shooter; he
claimed self-defense” (Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, 2004). Note here that under castle doctrine, the shooter
may well have been justified as acting in self-defense, though again the reporting handbook explicitly states that this
would not qualify as a justifiable homicide under the guidelines. " - footnote 8



For those who need the tl;dr:

"We find no evidence that castle doctrine law deters crime. Furthermore, our
estimates are sufficiently precise as to rule out moderate-sized deterrence effects. Thus,
while our view is that it is a priori reasonable to expect that strengthening self-defense law
would deter crime, we find this is not the case.

We find suggestive but inconclusive evidence that these laws increase justifiable
homicide by private citizens. However, the absolute impact of even the largest and most
statistically significant estimates is quite small, given how few homicides are classified in
this way. Our estimates suggest the laws cause at most 50 additional justifiable homicides
per year across all 23 states that adopted castle doctrine.

More significantly, results indicate that castle doctrine laws increase total
homicides by 7 to 9 percent. Put differently, the laws induce an additional 500 to 700
homicides per year across the 23 states in our sample that enacted castle doctrine laws.
This finding is robust to a wide set of difference-in-differences specifications, including
region-by-year fixed effects, state-specific linear time trends, and controls for time-varying
factors such as economic conditions and policing and incarceration rates. These findings
provide evidence that lowering the expected cost of lethal force causes there to be more of
it" - page 23
 

SMS

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
15,322
Reaction score
4,279
Location
OKC area
So they used the FBI definition of justifiable homicide instead of the State definition...while evaluating State laws and their impact?

Thats the problem with most studies...when the 'researchers' make up their own definitions or twist the application of those definitions to the model, they can make stuff look however they want.

I remember one study or statistic about kids not to long ago that included people up to 30 years old.
 

ripnbst

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
46
Location
Spring, TX
"These findings provide evidence that lowering the expected cost of lethal force causes there to be more of
it" - page 23

While there is more of it, it is still much less costly per incidence. 100 justifiable homicides where the investigation ends in three days or less because someone shot an intruder at 3:00AM in their family room after climbing through a window is still cheaper than 10 homicides claimed justifiable that need to be investigated for weeks and require DNA testing and CSI out the ying yang.
 

Werewolf

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
3,471
Reaction score
7
Location
OKC
The question they failed to address is what kind of person makes up the increased homicide rate. Is it law abiding citizens getting killed or more criminals paying the ultimate price for their crime

Makes a difference IMO.

But not much. One answer weeds out the crazies who will pay for their stupidity and the other answer means a reduction in the number of active criminals in the population.

Either way the gene pool gets a little bit cleaner. Where's the downside?

I certainlydon't see one.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom