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
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

The authors also assumed that enhanced self-defense laws deter non-confrontational crimes like burglary [page 2]. However, property crimes like burglary are more likely to increase when more citizens partake of their civil right of self-defense. In The Bias Against Guns, John Lott explained:

If you make something more difficult, people will be less likely to engage in it … just as grocery shoppers switch between different types of produce depending on costs, criminals switch between different kinds of prey depending on the cost of attacking. Economists call this, appropriately enough, “the substitution effect.”

Instead of violent, confrontational crime like robbery to obtain a victim’s property, criminals wait until victims leave home before committing burglary, which presents less personal risk to themselves.

FBI crime data support Lott’s premise. As more law-abiding citizens arm themselves, violent crimes drop and property crimes rise. Of all FBI major crime categories, only burglary increased between 2000 and 2010 (over 5%). Meanwhile, homicide incidents decreased over 5%, robbery decreased 10%, and aggravated assaults decreased 15%.

Cheng and Hoekstra claimed they wanted to determine “whether strengthening self-defense laws deters criminals,” but including burglary is simply an attempt to derogate “castle doctrine” for doing what it should: causing criminals to commit more property crimes and fewer violent crimes.

The authors altered their own conclusions by beginning with a misleading dataset.

FBI data show that “castle doctrine” correlates with less violent crime, not more

The authors attempted to guess what violent crime rates should have been had “castle doctrine” states not enhanced their self-defense laws by comparing them to non-”castle doctrine” states [page 3].

One way to determine if states benefitted from enhanced self-defense laws is to ask whether violent crime rates increase or decrease after enactment. If rates increased, then enacting “castle doctrine” laws created a “cost” because higher rates meant greater victimization. If rates decreased, then these laws created a “savings” because of less victimization after enactment.

Averaging five or more years together gives a picture of the general level of violence during that time period. For the states in this study, the average year they enacted “castle doctrine” laws was 2006. Including non-enacting states’ performance before and after 2006 provides a comparison to see how well states did without enhanced self-defense laws. This dataset includes “before” years of 2000-2005 and “after” years of 2006-2010. For Stand Your Ground and full “castle doctrine” states, their year of enactment defines “before” and “after” periods, each with their murder, robbery, and aggravated assault rates averaged. If the average crime rate was lower in the “after” period, the state became safer.

The truth? States that adopted all three “castle doctrine” laws experienced the largest declines in all three violent crime rates, handily besting non-adopting states.

Stand Your Ground states (removing Duty to Retreat but not necessarily Civil Immunity Protection and Presumption of Reasonable Fear) averaged larger decreases in murder rates than non-adopting states, too. While their aggravated assaults declined on par with non-adopting states, their robbery rates — while dropping after enactment — declined less than non-adopting states:

Table 1(All crime rates describe the number of victims per 100,000 population.)

Graph 2

Graph 3

  Graph 4

These data suggest that Cheng and Hoekstra had a point only if their sole conclusion highlighted the smaller benefits of enacting No Duty to Retreat laws alone. To claim that homicide increased is questionable at best.

Most importantly, Cheng and Hoekstra suggested these laws affect crime rates. If true, the data show adopting all three “castle doctrine” laws causes a noticeable decrease in violent crime.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Former civilian disarmament supporter and medical researcher Howard Nemerov investigates the civil liberty of self-defense and examines the issue of gun control, resulting in his book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working? He appears frequently on NRA News as their “unofficial” analyst and was published in the Texas Review of Law and Politics with David Kopel and Carlisle Moody.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (20)
All Comments   (20)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
No wonder many people are suspicious of the academic class.
1 year ago
1 year 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?
1 year ago
1 year 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.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
While,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,thats murder.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes, that's what happens. More robbers die and less good, law-abiding citizens get victimized.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Studies have shown that Stand Your Ground laws are discriminatory"

And the assumption underlying this statement is...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Its discriminatory if you live in nyc, chicago, or california.
1 year ago
1 year 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.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Written by a true liberal, who don't know what the hell they are talking about.
1 year ago
1 year 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.
1 year ago
1 year 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.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Did you read the article?
1 year ago
1 year 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.
1 year ago
1 year 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
1 year ago
1 year 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.
1 year ago
1 year 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.
1 year ago
1 year 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
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ain't got anything to do with a fricking castle. It is called defending your life.
1 year ago
1 year 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
1 year ago
1 year 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/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All

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