Get PJ Media on your Apple

Politicized ‘Science’: No, Castle Doctrine Does Not Increase Violent Crime

Debunking the misleading "study" gathering steam with Second Amendment restrictionists.

by
Howard Nemerov

Bio

July 11, 2013 - 12:00 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

When George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, anti-rights politicians and media saw an opportunity to sway public opinion in favor of repealing state “castle doctrine” laws. All they needed was supportive “research.”

Enter Cheng Cheng and Mark Hoekstra, both of the Texas A&M University Economics Department — they published a paper titled “Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Expansions to Castle Doctrine.” They concluded that “castle doctrine” had no beneficial impact on burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault. They also claimed that the result of “strengthening self-defense law is increased homicide.” Their conclusion: enhanced self-defense laws caused more murder.

The media ate it up. The Chicago Tribune ran an article titled “Report: ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws lead to increase in homicide.” Think Progress, while covering Alaska governor Sean Parnell’s signing of the state’s new Stand Your Ground law, wrote: “Studies have shown that Stand Your Ground laws are discriminatory, associated with higher homicide rates, and don’t deter crime.”

Had the media actually explored available data themselves, Cheng and Hoekstra’s research would have been marginalized instead of lauded as evidence that “castle doctrine” should be repealed.

What is “castle doctrine”?

“Castle doctrine” laws include three possible enhancements to existing self-defense laws. First: if people are someplace they have the right to be, they’re no longer obligated to attempt flight before using defensive force (Remove Duty to Retreat, also called Stand Your Ground). Second: if attacked, it’s reasonable for the defender to believe their life is at risk (Presumption of Reasonable Fear). Third: it’s much harder for attackers or their estate to sue for damages resulting from justifiable self-defense (Civil Liability Protection).

Not all “castle doctrine” states enact all three enhancements, nor do they necessarily enact them all at once. For example, Alaska had already enacted the second and third enhancements prior to removing the duty to retreat.

Authors’ dataset contains errors and inaccurate assumptions

Cheng and Hoekstra recently published an updated version of their research, yet the authors retained numerous errors from their earlier version, calling into question their methods and motives.

Cheng and Hoekstra compiled a table of 20 states that enacted some or all of these “castle doctrine” laws between 2000 and 2010, but 24 states enacted “castle doctrine” laws during their study period [page 36].

They claimed that Missouri enacted Stand Your Ground and civil protection, but Missouri law includes limited enhancements and shouldn’t be counted. Even so, their dataset contained many other errors. For example, they claimed 17 states removed the duty to retreat during their study period — actually, 19 did. Twenty-two states provide civil liability protection — the authors included only 17 (see graph below). They correctly noted that 13 states enacted Presumption of Reasonable Fear, but they ignored four states that enacted “castle doctrine” laws: Idaho (2006), Maine (2007), Wisconsin (2008), and Wyoming (2008).

 Graph 1(Cheng & Hoekstra [page 7] cited National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, as did I.)

Another problem with their dataset is that they equate Stand Your Ground with “castle doctrine”:

In 2005, Florida became the first in a recent wave of states to pass laws that explicitly extend castle doctrine to places outside the home, and to expand self-defense protections in other ways. Since then, more than 20 states have followed in strengthening their self-defense laws by passing versions of “castle doctrine” or “stand-your-ground” laws. … For ease of exposition, we subsequently refer to these laws as castle doctrine laws. [page 1]

As shown later in this article, the difference between enacting only Stand Your Ground and full “castle doctrine” is significant when looking at crime trends.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (20)
All Comments   (20)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
No wonder many people are suspicious of the academic class.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Cheng and Hoekstra are in the Texas A&M economics dept and our economy is in a free fall. Why are they not commenting on our economy? Am I to believe anything their studies have to say about the Castle Doctrine?
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm not certain what my state's law is on the topic, but I know this. Any thug forcing his or her way into my house will die if I hit what I'm aiming at, and I usually do. You don't have to be a great marksman with a 12-gauge loaded with 00 buck.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
While,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,thats murder.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, that's what happens. More robbers die and less good, law-abiding citizens get victimized.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Studies have shown that Stand Your Ground laws are discriminatory"

And the assumption underlying this statement is...
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Its discriminatory if you live in nyc, chicago, or california.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think the title of the article is misleading. Stand-your-ground is not the same thing as the Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrine gives you the right to self defense in your home or property. To argue that the Castle Doctrine, properly understood, causes an increase in crime is stupid. For that increase to happen criminals would have to prefer facing an armed opponent.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Written by a true liberal, who don't know what the hell they are talking about.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Need some clarity here. The authors used "castle doctrine" many times in their PAPER. They also analyzed states with "duty to retreat" laws, aka Stand Your Ground. I wrote an article. Are you concerned about my article, or their PAPER. Researchers perform studies and write papers, journalists study facts and write articles.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Based on this article, the authors of this study are perhaps stupid, or perhaps they just have an anti gun agenda. Sounds like they should be working at UT in Austin and not Texas A&N.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Did you read the article?
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
I did and it had very little to do with Castle Doctrine. It was about Stand-your-ground. SYG occurs outside the domain of the Castle Doctrine. Perhaps instead of questioning whether I read the article you should have taken time to understand self-defense law. Your comments indicate that you don't understand the difference so I hope you aren't walking around with gun on you.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here's a piece by Jeff Wentworth, who authored our castle doctrine law. The idea is that castle doctrine means you don't have to retreat in your "castle." Many states had or have laws still saying you must show you tried to retreat first before using deadly force, even if at home. Stand Your Ground is considered an extension of removing the duty to retreat in your own home or business. Like your home, if you are legally in a place you have the right to be, you still have no duty to retreat.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/community/northeast/news/article/sentinel=975a8bea6c59cb14e567655c5bc096e1&loc=http://www.mysanantonio.com/community/northeast/news/article/Texas-Castle-Doctrine-law-protects-our-3507040.php&dref=&title=Texas'%20‘Castle%20Doctrine'%20law%20protects%20our%20citizens%20-%20San%20Antonio%20Express-News
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howard:

I understand you point on classification, however, what we are really discussing here is self-defense outside the home, i..e, stand your ground. the Castle Doctrine is part of common law and in absence of a statute prohibiting it you are good to go. SYG laws are not part of common law and it takes a statute to remove the burden of proof from the defender. You still have to justify but you cannot automatically be prosecuted for not retreating. Just because the NRA puts them on the same page doesn't mean that the NRA considers them identical.

If Zimmerman found Martin in his house under the Castle Doctrine he could have shot him no questions asked. Even under Florida's SYG there has to be questions to determine whether he followed the law. That is a significant difference.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
The NRA is the architect of the modern restoration of self-defense rights, beginning with Florida's castle doctrine and then spreading to other states. Before castle doctrine, Florida required you to prove you tried retreating even if you were in your home. So the NRA places equal value on all aspects of castle doctrine. Where Florida police sometimes err is in assuming claims of castle doctrine protection stymies their investigation. This isn't true. Certain factors must be accounted for, even if the defense happens in the home. Objective criteria determine if the attacker was capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm. In the home or outside, the same criteria exist, since there's no duty to retreat anywhere the citizen has a right to be.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
We're including stand your ground as part of modern castle doctrine enhancements. As you'll note in this NRA-ILA page, an article about stand your ground appears under their page heading of "Self-Defense/Castle Doctrine".

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/issues/self-defense-castle-doctrine.aspx
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ain't got anything to do with a fricking castle. It is called defending your life.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Self-defense law predated Castle Doctrine. All states had this, some enhanced self-defense law by passing one or more of the castle doctrine statutes. At the bottom of the page I referred to above is an report entitled "Fortifying The Right To Self-Defense" which covers "Florida's recently enacted "Castle Doctrine" law." The report is here: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2006/fortifying-the-right-to-self-defense.aspx
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
When one is looking to prop up ones thesis via this or that study, there are always "science" whores who will accommodate. And we all know about the laundry list of climate changers who jumped on that band wagon. Same here.

To be sure, those who are gunning for gun control will brook no dissent. Moreover, they will find any loophole to "prove" their point. Most significantly, they go postal whenever they are thwarted. As such, 2nd Amendment adherents: proceed with caution - http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/03/leftists-go-postal-over-gun-control-threatening-to-kill-legal-gun-owners-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/

Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All

3 Trackbacks to “Politicized ‘Science’: No, Castle Doctrine Does Not Increase Violent Crime”