"Stand Your Ground" Laws Create More Problems Than They Solve & Encourage Vigilantism

In ROUND 2, my opponent makes the argument that we cannot expect laws to be perfect, and so it is wrong to judge "Stand Your Ground" Laws on the presumption that they must be perfect. I actually agree with this conclusion. Few laws in our nation--or in any nation for that matter--are perfect. For example, the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the defendant a speedy and public trial, to be held before an impartial jury, which shall return a final verdict(s) at the conclusion of the trial [1]. It's unmistakeable that juries have returned faulty verdicts in the past, based on falacious or unsound reasoning, but this is a critical component of U.S. judicial system, and it was enacted to make trials fair and effective at getting at the truth, all while maintaining the presumed innocence of the accused [1]. Even more, this amendment was ratified into the U.S. Constitution because the Founding Fathers realized that it was better than the judicial methods that had preceded it, where alleged criminals were incarcerated for long periods of time without first being tried in the courts and where court costs prevented some trials from even taking place [1]; it had a net positive impact on American life.And, in fact, this is the criteria that we should be using when we judge a law as citizens: Does the law have a net positive impact on American life? Is it better than what preceded it?For Bob Jarvis, a Florida law professor at Nova Southeastern University, this is a question that seriously has to be asked of SYG Laws, like the one in his state. "There will be mistakes made in the interpretation of this and any other law, and that's why we have appeals courts. The question is, are so many cases coming up with questionable results that the law has to be scrapped? That's a very legitimate question to ask: whether the law is so imperfect that you've got to get rid of it" [2].Undoubtedly, some of the complaints that can be leveled at SYG Laws can be chalked up to human error and poor jury decisions, or on human resistance/stubborness on part of grand juries. But when laws are passed in the states, they have an obligation to coordinate with federal laws already on the books and with any human element that the law states must be part of the process, such as juries, which are guaranteed by 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendements [3].I've already demonstrated that Florida's SYG Law is written so that it allows the use of deadly force, either by the agitator or agitated, so long as a "reasonable fear" is present in a person's mind that his life will be taken from him or that he will endure great bodily injury. Is it asking too much of juries to place the burden on them to clarify this daunting ambiguity in the law and determine who's in the right? And what of judges, who can provide SYG immunity?I think the answer to both of these questions is an emphatic "yes". I think the problem with SYG Laws is that they permit people to stand their ground and do not place a priority on retreating, if possible, when they feel their life is in danger. When the law tells people they can stand their ground in a public place, some people will, and the sense of civil liability and the clarity between victim and assailant in these incidences will go out the window.In the previous ROUNDS, I have cited specific cases to demonstrate the senselessness found in SYG Laws. Now we'll review alternative reasons why SYG Laws should be repealed.Criminals are exploiting SYG immunity to avoid prosecutionIn SYG states like Florida, where the burden is on prosecutors to first disprove a claim of reasonable self-defense--SYG immunity--before they can file charges and hold a criminal trial, criminals are avoiding justice and getting away with murder [4][5]. In fact, some people who are legally permitted to carry a gun and who claimed to have used it in self-defence--and who's story was corroborated by witnesses--have gone to prison even while killers with more outrageous, uncorroborated self-defense claims have walked free. The key difference: those that are avoiding prison time (and in many cases, who are not even seeing the inside of a courtroom) have invoked stand-your-ground immunity or defense [5].Take Bryan Sellers who was 23 when he shot his drunken stepfather to prevent him from physically attacking his mother. Sellers even pressed a towel against the injured man's neck while they waited for the paramedics to show up at their Orlando home [5]. He had no criminal record and was legally permitted to carry a concealed handgun [5]. His mother even later swore she was afraid her husband was going to kill her [5].Yet because he never invoked the state's stand-your-ground law at trial, he was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm and given a 20-year prison sentence [5], even while killers with more outrageous self-defense claims and who have invoked the state's SYG Law have walked free--in many instances, even managing to avoid a criminal trial [5]. The list of people that have avoided prosecution includes serial criminals, drug dealers, and feuding gang members, many with a well-established record of gun violence [5].This the headache that prosecutors like Pete Magrino gripe about [6].White-on-black homicides are 354 times more likely to be ruled justified than white-on-white homicidesLook at the subtitle of this section. Read it carefully. "White-on-black homicides are 354 times more likely to be ruled justified than white-on-white homicides." I'll rephrase it in case you missed it: When the killer is white and the victim is black, it's 354 times more likely to be ruled justified than when the killer and victim are both white [7]. Now you see it!And it's true according to a study conducted by the Urban Institute [7]. Racial bias is clearly at play when juries and judges consider stand-your-ground defenses [7]. Looking at it from different angles, in cases involving either a black or hispanic victim, the killings were found justified by SYG Law 78% of the time; in cases involving a white victim, the killings were found justified by SYG Law 56% of the time [7].In a related study conducted by the Congressional Research Service not looking specifically at SYG Laws, a huge disparity was found in successful conviction rates between different categories of inter-racial shootings; the U.S. Civil Rights Commission is now evaluating the role that race plays in SYG Laws [7].SYG Immunity/Defense are triumphantly being used in the legal system for the most flimsiest self-defense reasonsIn Arizona earlier this year, police officers opted not to charge a man who shot dead a fellow customer at Walmart, after the armed man and the shopper got into a heated argument at the service counter [7]. The shooter, Cyle Quadlin, invoked Arizona's stand-your-ground immunity, which factored into the decision made by police; surveillance videos show Quadlin and the now dead man, Belinte Chee, duking it out at the service counter immediately after the argument [8]. Quandlin was losing the fight and that's when he shot dead Chee, claiming self-defense [8].This is just additional evidence that SYG Laws are negatively impacting the country and reducing the sense of civil liability, which is fostering an environment conducive to vigilantism.In 2008, a Florida man shot and killed two 24-year-olds after he got into an argument with them at South Florida's Chillis restaurant. According to witnesses, the man, Gabriel Mobley, went back to his car to retrieve a gun and returned to shoot Rolando Carranza and Jason Gonzalez, who he believed were carrying guns [9]. Police found no guns or weapons on either man [9].Mobley was charged with second-degree murder and his trial judge felt he wasn't protected by the state's SYG Law, since he returned to his car to retrieve a gun, but a 2-1 appellate court decision overturned that ruling, granting Mobley the state's SYG immunity [9].Other studies shows that SYG Laws are driving homicide rates upBesides a Texas A&M University study I cited in the previous ROUND showing homicide rates going up across SYG states, additional studies show a replicated trend. An analysis of death certificates before and after SYG Laws were passed in different states, conducted by Georgia State University, found that states that passed the Law ended up with higher homicide rates [10]. That study's analysis found that the additional deaths were concentrated among white men [10].Independent analysis performed by Standford Law Professor John Donahue, who has been studying crime and violence for several decades, matches the results found in the Texas A&M University study [10].(SYG = "Stand Your Ground")Final ROUND:(R = Round, S = Source)[1] (http://constitution.laws.com...)[2] (http://www.tampabay.com...)[3] (http://constitutionus.com...)[4] (R 2, S 3)[5] (R 2, S 2)[6] (R 2, S 7)[7] (http://thinkprogress.org...)[8] (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...)[9] (http://thinkprogress.org...)[10] (R 3, S 10)ROUND 3 Sources:1 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us...)2 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us...)3 (http://www.wisegeek.com...)4 (http://www.thewire.com...)5 (http://blogs.findlaw.com...)6 (R 2, S 7)7 (R 2, S 3)8 (R 2, S 5)9 (http://econweb.tamu.edu...)10 (http://www.npr.org...)