Returning to the Roots of the Castle Doctrine: Why Recent Stand Your Ground Laws are in Line with the Natural Law

As dusk befalls a warm September evening, Carefree Carrie walks down the street on her way home. Glimpsing a shady figure ahead, she cautiously crosses the street and keeps walking. The figure runs towards her waving something in her face exclaiming, "Your money or your life!" Perceiving a gun waved in her face and fearing for her life, Carrie throws down her purse and starts to run away. The masked figure chases after her and tackles her to the ground. Struggling to her feet, Carrie once again sees her assailant's gun flashing in the air. Carrie pulls out her concealed weapon and shoots her attacker, bringing him to the ground. At trial, Carrie will claim that she acted in self-defense. Was Carrie's act sufficient for self-defense? Does her intent matter at all? What about the fact that she fired the first shot? Determining whether Carrie's conduct was justifiable as self-defense first requires an understanding of the law itself, from its historical background to its contemporary statutory language, as well as how the courts have interpreted and applied self-defense as a justification. Part I of this note will address how the right of self-defense resonates throughout history from ancient days up to the modern era and finds its origins in the great pillars of Western civilization. After these early precursors to the self-defense doctrine, a grasp of the development of self-defense laws in English common law is relevant to understanding American self-defense laws since English common law heavily influenced American laws. Once the historical foundation for American self-defense is established, Part II analyzes the early American self-defense laws and the philosophical evolution from the Second Amendment to modern self-defense laws, which will demonstrate the state of self-defense in America today. Specifically, the State v. Zimmerman case demonstrates a modern application of self-defense. Ultimately, while American self-defense laws in their text are currently in line with natural law, public policy and recent cases such as State v. Dunn demonstrate that there is a growing possibility and opportunity for judicial interpretation more loosely and generally than, perhaps, the original natural law approach truly warrants. Current public policy concerns demonstrate that the courts may be applying the self-defense laws far more broadly and subjectively than the actual law permits. If this continues, such application may draw the legal understanding of the Stand Your Ground statutes beyond the scope of natural law. After understanding the current state of self-defense in America, Part III presents a look at the Catholic perspective of the doctrine of self-defense that demonstrates the validity of an adherence to the natural law approach. This view of self-defense focuses on the principle of double-effect that protects the innocent person attacked with the possible, yet regrettable, effect of such protection causing the death of the aggressor. Given the relative newness of the modern self-defense laws, the natural law viewpoint warrants a valid interpretation of the statutory language in order to maintain the true meaning behind the self-defense statutes recently enacted.