The public has cried out that victims should not have to endure the consequences of defending themselves. The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law states that defendants can use unlawful forces in order to protect themselves against perceived threats. For example, the Supreme …show more content…
Jurisdictions state two options: Individuals have a “duty to retreat” rather than using deadly forces if there is a safe place of retreat. Others argue that today, jurisdictions eliminated that rule and solely use the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law for many court cases where people use deadly forces even if there is a known safe haven. Daniel Sweeney of Cleveland-Marshall College of Law states, “If one is confronted with deadly force, but knows for certain that he can escape the altercation, then using deadly force against his attacker is not truly necessary” (Sweeney 719). Sweeney argues that such laws increase violence and crime, destroy the principle of necessity and interrupts the Criminal Justice System. This argument does qualify since many individuals take advantage of the law and proceed to spread violence without having consequences. Incident rates for defensible homicides “in the U.S. doubled between 2000 and 2010” (Called Self-Defense 259). This argument is valid, however, Supreme Courts have put strict qualifications for the law and criminals are being brought to justice for their felonies. Moreover, many individuals are actual victims of reoccurring violence and this law does qualify for them. Taking away the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law would negatively impact lives of those who have no choice but resort to violence as