Stand Your Ground Laws
Abstract
Stand your ground laws permit a person to use lethal force in self-defense in public, even if such force may be avoided safely by retiring. As a result, these rules encourage the use of lethal force in daily disagreements between individuals. Many works of literature have suggested that SYG laws have increased ownership and use of lethal weapons and raised crime rates. This study research has highlighted some gaps in the literature that are yet to be covered, such as different factors that lead to increased public murder other than self-defense. However, the criminal justice system needs to set policies that will help to reduce cases of increased deaths that result from SYG laws.
These policies include the creation of laws that save the public in line with the constitution, establishing gun licenses for ownership of lethal weapons, and launching technology to convey solid evidence during the arraignment of offenders in court proceedings. Generally, there is a need to repel the SYG law because it contradicts the constriction’s universal suffrage for human rights entitlement to survival. There are better judicial options that can be used to apprehend suspected criminals before they can be presumed guilty. SYG laws have caused increased deaths because they assume citizens are guilty from different perspectives, such as racial composition.
Brief Summary
The purpose of this paper is to focus on the primary issue of Stand Your Ground deaths, which have become a prevalently contentious problem in the criminal justice system. The paper will examine the existing patterns and trends in the incidences of deaths and the possible factors that majorly contribute to their potentiality of happening. This paper will use a case study analysis and a literature review with the aim of identifying the implications and consequences of the increased deaths. The analysis will then suggest recommendations that can be implemented in future policies and practices that minimize the chances of their occurrence. The findings of the paper will highlight the significance of understanding the context in which Stand Your Ground deaths take place and the underlying need for a systematic and comprehensive approach that can be used to address this problem in the criminal justice system. Implications of the findings will be discussed in accordance with their impact on the rights of citizens, public safety, and the entire justice system.
Introduction
The case study example that will be in this research paper is Zimmerman’s fatal shooting case. On February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch coordinator for a gated community in Sanford, Florida, fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin (Tumin, 2022). Based on early physical evidence and Zimmerman’s statement that he acted in self-defense, the Sanford Police Department did not seek criminal prosecution against Zimmerman, at least initially, under Florida’s justified use of force legislation (Duxbury, 2021). The surrounding conditions around Zimmerman’s shooting and the jury’s decision that failed to reach the offender’s prosecution attracted the attention of the media and the public. This attention led to a phase of self-defense regulations that have recently been passed by different states to the forefront of policy discussion and jurisprudence. These new laws are termed Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws, and they empower individuals to use lethal force in self-defense where there is a reasonable sense of a threat without having to retreat first.
The idea of the “Castle Doctrine” has historically maintained the right to defend one’s house against attackers without the obligation to retreat. Castle Doctrine aimed to defend individuals when faced with an attack on their home (Alexander, 2020). The fundamental distinction in this current wave of legislation is that it extends the Castle Doctrine to areas other than the house, such as a car, workplace, or anywhere else an individual has a legal right to be (Yakubovich et al., 2021). Hence, it diminishes and eliminates the long-standing obligation to withdraw (Graham, 2021). Out of 41 states that were analyzed in the US, 23 states that enacted SYG laws have recorded 248358 homicides ( 77.9% being men aged between 20 and 34 years while 22.1% being women (Degli Esposti 2022). SYG laws have been associated with an increase in homicide cases of over 7% monthly rate (Degli Esposti 2022). The research paper will be able to answer the question: what is the impact of Stand Your Ground laws on the use of lethal force and crime rates?
Case Study
The case study this paper will focus on is the homicide offence that was committed by George Zimmerman in 2012. Zimmerman is an American who made headlines for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old black kid, on February 26, 2012 Lythcott-Haims, 2018). Zimmerman was born in Virginia, United States of America, on October 5, 1983 (Alexander, 2020). He is White and Hispanic and attended Seminole States College to study Criminal Justice. Zimmerman worked as an insurance underwriter until 2007, when he relocated to Sanford, Florida, in 2009 (Alexander, 2020). In 2011, he became a neighborhood watchman for the gated community of Retreat at Twin Lakes, where he lived.
George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin on the night of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, USA. Martin was visiting his father in a gated neighborhood where Zimmerman worked as a guard captain at the time of the incident (Lythcott-Haims, 2018). When Zimmerman contacted 911 to report a suspicious individual, the response was to not approach the person and not get out of his SUV (Lythcott-Haims, 2018). Zimmerman did not follow the instructions, and neighbors reported hearing gunfire shortly afterward. George Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, 17, on April 11, 2012 (Tumin, 2022). Martin was unarmed when he was shot following a physical altercation between the two (Mitchell, 2022). SYG laws term Zimmerman’s reaction as an act of self-defense against Trayvon.
The controversial death of Trayvon is an offence that Zimmerman had committed against an unarmed boy. After Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea were discovered in his hands, Trayvon was determined to be harmless (Blackmon et al., 2019). Trayvon was wrongfully accused by Zimmerman because he was wearing a hoodie. Also, Zimmerman disobeyed when he ignored the officer’s instructions after dialing 911 (Blackmon et al., 2019). The incident could not have occurred if Zimmerman had followed the officer’s directions. Trayvon Martin was killed before he could share his side of the story. It is difficult to determine whether he did anything improper in any event because he was holding sweets at the time of his death (Mitchell, 2022). According to Zimmerman’s narrative, Martin did wrong by addressing Zimmerman; once Zimmerman got out of his SUV, Martin moved to him and made problems by assuring Zimmerman that he had a problem.
Trayvon’s case constitutes a murder offense, from public opinion. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder and a lesser penalty of manslaughter (Mitchell, 2022). The jury found Zimmerman not guilty on all counts (Blackmon et al., 2019). Following the incident, Zimmerman was brought into police custody and questioned for many hours. He was freed that night, but the populace demanded that justice be done. The governor of Florida assigned a special prosecutor to look into the situation, and charges were brought.
Prosecutors, skilled investigators, and police officers reached varied judgments since the case was problematic because the defendant and accused were the only ones present throughout the occurrence. No one else saw or heard what transpired during the confrontations, save for the gunshot. It is difficult to determine if justice was served when the verdict was rendered (Blackmon et al., 2019). For those who trust the legal system, the judgment was just. Those who doubt the legal system will interpret the ruling as racist and corrupt (Mitchell, 2022). It is preferable to distinguish between legal and moral fairness. Legal justice was served in this case (Blackmon et al., 2019). The jury performed its job in reviewing the evidence presented in court. This act makes the trial and verdict fair since the jury evaluates all sides and assures that both are on the legal side before reaching their choice.
A Theoretical Framework of the Crime Event
Social conflict theory
There are several ideas that may be used to explain the atrocious event in terms of conceptual analysis. The intersection model of criminality and race is the most relevant theory in criminology. The victim was African-American, while the assailant was white and Hispanic. Social Conflict Theory is the criminology theory that best explains Trayvon Martin’s killing. This shows that the system discriminates against individuals of racial race since Zimmerman was allowed to murder a defenseless adolescent with no repercussions (Zhao et al., 2021). This paradigm of conflict is precisely replicated in the criminal justice categorization. This theory is based on the belief that the activity of financial and social factors in culture is the major cause of wrongdoing (Zhao et al., 2021). It features foreigners as well as black African lads in sweaters. As previously stated, the material classifies young black guys as criminals, which is a characteristic shared by Martin. This information is a form of racial profiling against Trayvon. Zimmerman was given the order to kill Martin, and financial strength was also evaluated in this case.
Zimmerman’s case has urged everyone to work together to safeguard communities and reduce crime. Hence, it led Zimmerman to assume that Martin had inadvertently sparked the altercation (Zhao et al., 2021). Material and social disputes are both types of conflicts, but the notion of races and classes is suddenly novel. This knowledge covers groups colliding and how power and resources compete. The outcome of the case might be interpreted as a societal or unjust dispute. Despite the fact that Zimmerman admitted to the murder, law enforcement in Florida permitted him to evade prosecution (Loughran, 2019). The purpose of this law, the absence of supporting evidence, and the circumstances of the murder case were not established. Criminal law and the criminal justice system are therefore viewed as affluent and influential actions of social minorities, and the policies that arise strive to govern the poor. This occurred when a jury exonerated Zimmerman as a free person.
The jury agreed that Zimmerman had the authority to kill Martin because he was in danger. Zimmerman stated that there was a possibility of a physical altercation between the parties. While Zimmerman was arguing with Martin, he shot Martin in self-defense (Alexander, 2020). The acquittal calls into doubt Florida law. The Self-Defense Act of Florida. Allow a person with a reasonable fear of power to cause physical damage or death, even if it is not feasible to retreat from danger Long, (Long, 2021). While Martin was defenceless, Zimmerman was nevertheless justified in shooting him due to the perceived threat. In this situation, the aforementioned threat is a conflict. Zimmerman is also an older man. He weighed at least 50 pounds heavier than Martin, who also possessed a fatal weapon.
Martin, on the other hand, does not suit this description. His parents were both workers, and he was an African American. The socioeconomic disparity in the United States reflects this situation as well (Sampson, 2018). It is a disparity between the affluent and poor disparities as well as societal inequalities. This disparity supports the conflict hypothesis observed in this case. Human society is made up of varying degrees of inherent inequality; therefore, the establishment of a hierarchy is due to an unequal allocation of power (Bosworth et al., 2019). The initial number of those most vulnerable to crime was observed in relation to other racial groupings. Furthermore, the decision, in this case, showed the injustice done to African Americans by the criminal justice system. Persons of color are more likely than Whites to defend themselves, and if they do, they are punished according to the crime and legislation. However, in Zimmerman’s case with Martin, Martin was subjected to violence, and as a consequence, his murder was cleared, and no punishments were imposed.
Rational choice theory
This theory is the traditional criminology formulation from the 1980s that best explains the rationale underlying Trayvon’s killing by Zimmerman. While rational choice theory’s principles may be traced back to the eighteenth-century philosopher Beccaria, this version adds a new dimension that highlights the rising importance of the economist in criminological thought (Wortham & LaPointe, 2020). The emphasis is on the projected reward for committing a crime, as well as the various costs and advantages involved with illegal activities (Bosworth, 2018). The traditional definition of rational choice is the act of assessing what alternatives are available and then selecting the most desirable one based on some consistent criterion (Nickerson, 2021). This rational choice model is already an optimization-based method in certain ways to Zimmerman’s case study.
The issue of rational choice may be stated as one of maximizing a real-valued utility function by adding one empirically unrestrictive assumption. The goal of rational choice theory is to explain social events by assuming rational decisions on the level of the actor (Nickerson, 2020). It has been proposed that rational choice theory should also describe the behavior of agents (Zhao et al., 2021). Two mechanisms or processes are examined to explain how rational choice theory achieves its goal: actor choice and the macro-micro-macro transition.
Literature Review
Factors related to the commission of the crime
According to Levy et al. (2020), SYG legislation has evolved into a potent tool for self-defense, assisting in incidents of domestic abuse, rape, trespassing, and robbery. These instances are significantly easier to pursue in court since there is ample evidence to aid both the victim and the offender. Homeowners have found it simpler to stay and feel protected on their properties now that they have the option of standing their ground if an intruder trespasses without invitation (Guettabi & Munasib, 2018). Proponents of SYG laws say that the legislation will prevent crime, with strong backing from the National Rifle Association (NRA) (Guettabi & Munasib, 2018). They also argue that law-abiding persons must be able to defend themselves against intruders and assailants without fear of criminal or civil repercussions for acting in self-defense (Guettabi & Munasib, 2018). The Missouri Legislature’s attention to self-defense amendments highlights the threat of unlawful force and the significance of SYG rule enforcement. It assesses how juries perceive and understand the SYG cases involving self-defense and the supposed modification to the rule regarding the permissible use of lethal force that self-defense acquired.
In another research, Wierenga (2020) emphasized the attention on the George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin murder case, in which Zimmerman’s lawyer used the SYG legislation as his defense in a Florida suburb. This episode sparked national outcry and sparked anger against the SYG Florida statute without considering the negative impact of its repeal on unarmed who encounter and are victims of domestic abuse (Wierenga, 2020). According to Dirlam (2021), domestic violence is a big problem in different cultures, and unarmed individuals are constantly subjected to severe abuse at the hands of armed fellows or close friends or family members (Dirlam, 2020). There are situations when an abusive relationship may result in force, which becomes a threat to the unarmed’s life, prompting the unarmed to employ lethal action to protect themselves.
Wierenga (2020) suggests that SYG statutes are commonly used in prosecution judgments and legal defenses in such situations. As a result, such legislation can be a vital method for the unarmed to successfully assert their right to self-defense (Wierenga, 2020). Some may argue that basic self-defense laws protect such justifiable killings, so SYG is excessive. However, some affirmative SYG laws are a means of averting prosecution, ensuring the defendant remains shielded from faults by using analysis of the defender’s response as “reasonable” under the circumstances (Ukert, 2018). Another claim, in this case, is that jurors and judges employ biased glasses to examine “objective” reasonableness and that such biases disfavor unarmed, particularly domestic violence survivors (Wierenga, 2020). Stereotypes, domestic abuse myths, the inclination to blame the victim, and masculine normativity are some instances of the prejudices stated above (Schell et al., 2020). The conclusion is that SYG should be revisited, and the impact it has on the mind as a susceptible group should be revised (Schell et al., 2020), but not canceled. To be fair, the SYG modification can be utilized as a type of protection from criminal prosecution for people protecting themselves from abusive cohabitants, as well as creating a statutory presumption of fear in a victim/defendant who has suffered a history of domestic violence.
Using data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, Murphy (2018) examined the impact of expanding self-defense legislation on homicides and violent crime (UCR). The study studied the influence of state-by-state variations in self-defense legislation on killings and offenses. The findings revealed that SYG legislation did not reduce robbery, burglary, or serious assault but rather statistically increased the amount of non-negligent manslaughter and murders recorded by an 8 percent net increase (Murphy, 2018). Further, Degli Esposti (2022) performed a study to examine expanded self-defense legislation with a fresh perspective, employing an empirical technique similar to that employed by Murphy (2018), utilizing Vital Statistics on a monthly basis for homicide review. The findings of both Murphy’s (2018) and Degli Esposti’s (2022) research were comparable. SYG laws are connected with 30 killings each month; moreover, a review of data from Supplemental Homicide Reports revealed that SYG laws are associated with both justified and not justifiable homicides (Ukert, 2018). Finally, based on the findings of the injury study, McClellan and Tekin (2017) concluded that the findings are broadly consistent with the assumption that SYG legislation increased homicide and injury violence.
The current polarization of SYG legislation, as well as the extremely political arguments made by supporters and opponents of SYG laws without statistical support, inspired (Levy, 2018) research. The study’s goal is to determine the effects of SYG laws on crime and to determine if SYG laws have a historical precedent (Levy, 2018). Given the stated purpose, a comparative analysis of trends in violent crime between states with SYG laws and those with a duty to retreat was done using official data from police departments (Schell et al., 2020). The findings found that SYG regulations had a historical precedent, and statistical data analysis proved that SYG did not raise crime rates but rather aided in the acceleration of the fall in violent crime rates (Schell et al., 2020). Many occurrences of justifiable murders and (SYG) laws involving the shooting of purported unarmed criminals by armed civilians have inspired research on the influence of self-defense laws over the years.
Sampson et al. (2018) conducted state-level analytical research to investigate the association between SYG legislation and crimes. The findings revealed that the link between SYG laws and crime rates for some offences in a given time remained positive, while others bore no relevance or correlation (Sampson, 2018). Thus, the findings did not imply that SYG laws lower crime. In their acts, the armed individuals claimed to have detected a threat from the accused aggressors.
The SYG law allows anybody to protect themselves from harm during the conduct of a crime. The regulations abolish the requirement to withdraw since doing so might prevent someone from protecting themselves (Yakubovich et al., 2021). When the protection is valid, this steadfast legislation in Florida provides immunity from common acts and criminal arraignment. It may result in a decrease in misbehavior. During a 2012 discussion concerning Florida’s hold-fast restrictions, Dennis Baxley stated that the state had witnessed a significant decline in harsh misbehavior since the regulation’s implementation (Yakubovich et al., 2021). The destructive danger increased crime by 24.4%. There has also been a 31.6% increase in the number of gun-related offences (Yakubovich et al., 2021). The legislation makes it easier for people to pursue, shoot, or kill others without fear of legal repercussions. It removes any hindrance. It has the potential to accelerate the rate of terrible misconduct on a local level. The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law agrees, stating that there is a disproportionate amount of unfavorable effects on minorities in public. It does not always cover situations in which a person’s life is endangered.
The Stand Your Ground rule has limited justification for implementation since it has more negative consequences than positive results. It does not save many lives, but it does result in pointless killing (Burris, 2021). According to a study published in JAMA Network Open, holding fast restrictions is associated with an 11% increase in monthly crime rates (Burris, 2021). That monthly increase is more significant than the overall crime rates in most Northern and Western European countries. The reviewers looked at 23 states that ordered persevere regulations between 2000 and 2016, as well as 18 states that did not have the regulations over the whole review period, from 1999 to 2017. Their investigation discovered that strict laws might be linked to 700 more manslaughters per year.
The rise was most noticeable in Southern states that were early adopters of the rules, such as Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana (Schell et al., 2020). The review’s findings also echo a 2020 audit concerning convincing proof linking strict rules to an increase in gun homicide rates. Different factors have most certainly contributed to an increase in firearm brutality. Nevertheless, policies that encourage people to grab a weapon and shoot when they believe they are being threatened, rather than working up to 10, fleeing, and calling 911, are not effective ways of self-defense. They should be seen as the precursor to the misfortune that they are creating.
Social policies that will prevent future occurrence of the crime
Shepperd et al. (2018) carried out research on the ways that can help to reduce gun ownership in the United States. According to Shepperd et al. (2018), increased deaths due to the deployment of lethal weapons under SYG laws is a problem that can be solved by formulating strict policies in criminal justice. The criminal justice needs to introduce gun licenses to mature individuals and to those specific professionals (Barry et al. 2019). These licenses will ensure that individuals own lethal forces with the knowledge of the available authority. Hence, authorities and governments can easily monitor and evaluate whether issued guns are being used in the rightful manner and purpose. In this case, there will be reduced deaths because guns will be used to serve one role and purpose of property protection.
In a study that aimed at the formulation of future policies that will eradicate increased deaths due to SYG Laws, Boine (2020) suggested that different authorities need to study the trend and culture of deployment of lethal weapons. SYG deaths can be prevented in the future through various approaches that need to be implemented by the CJ system based on the use of lethal weapons in self-defense to one’s life. Boine (2020) asserts that the SYG laws should be coined to adhere to the constitution of any given country and be ready to safeguard lives instead of encouraging individuals to take action on their hands.
Allowing individuals to take action by their hands has several challenges. For example, people can be killed for reasons that are far away from self-defense and end up evading murder claims in courtrooms (Boine 2020). To prevent the problem of SYG deaths in the future, the CJ is required to include constitutionalism in the application of the self-defense narrative. Application and adherence to the constitution’s provision of safeguarding lives will provide a long-term solution in the future by limiting gun owners from taking away lives. The constitution states every citizen’s right and judicial process that people can take when faced with danger instead of extra-judicial killing. Hence, incorporation of the constitution into SYG laws will by far prevent further deaths due to shoot-first laws in the future.
Methodology
This research relied on the available literature on the topics that describe how SYG laws have increased rates of deaths. The collection of these sources involved the conduction of a thorough and systematic search of academic and non-academic data such as government reports, books, news articles, peer-reviewed journals, and online databases such as JSTOR and Google Scholar. The literature review was designed to enhance a systematic, unbiased, and comprehensive review.
Discussion
Findings in the literature review show that SYG lows have increased ownership and deployment of lethal forces and weapons, which causes increased deaths annually. However, little research has been conducted in the criminal justice system to determine the eligibility of ownership of lethal force. The law of self-defense and shooting first has not received many insights and legal acceptability by the community. The disadvantages have exceeded the advantages that shoot-first laws have promoted across the world. There are other factors that could contribute to the public murder of civilian citizens apart from self-defense. However, there is still no research that has been done on this factor. Psychological effects and work burnout have not been treated as factors in the criminal justice system as it is being treated in other careers and jobs, such as nursing. Thus, there is a need for more research to be conducted on the psychological status, emotional build-up, and happy working environmental factors of an individual before committing an offense.
The criminal justice system (CJ) needs to adopt various policies on which it will base its standings to make rulings and decisions on different cases. Further, these policies will be used to determine the appropriate age, profession, property ownership, and region of residence to allow ownership of lethal weapons. Appropriate stakeholders bodies in the CJ should create laws that will safeguard unarmed citizens from the afflictions and pain caused by armed officers and citizens. For instance, a good policy to curb unnecessary deaths would be to establish a gun license for individuals from different classes. Furthermore, there is a need for the criminal justice system to adopt technological advancements and innovations in using gadgets that keep surveying and monitoring all gun owners. This approach of adopting technology in the CJ processes will help in conveying accurate evidence during judgment and trials.
The SYG laws should be repelled to match what is provisioned in the constitution and the universal Human Rights Act. Life is regarded as a universal entitlement to all human beings that is not supposed to be taken away under untold circumstances. Most often, these laws are discriminative and go against human rights, especially affecting people of color. Thus, allowing self-defense increases the vulnerability of innocent people, which is against human rights. Therefore, the criminal justice system should not contradict itself by allowing easy taking away of citizens’ lives. This act constitutes public safety that needs to be enjoyed by all citizens.
References
Alexander, M. (2020). America, this is your chance. The New York Times, 8, 2020. Web.
Alexander, M. (2020). The injustice of this moment is not an aberration. The New York Times, 17. Web.
Blackmon, S. K. M., Neville, H. A., & Jones Thomas, A. (2019). Ideology matters: College students’ emotional reactions to the killing of Trayvon Martin. The Counseling Psychologist, 47(6), 909-937. Web.
Bosworth, M., Parmar, A., & Vázquez, Y. (Eds.). (2018). Race, criminal justice, and migration control: Enforcing the boundaries of belonging. Oxford University Press. Web.
Burris, S. (2021). Civilian use of deadly force in self-defense: Public health, Stand Your Ground. American Journal of Public Health, 111(4), 559-561. Web.
Degli Esposti, M., Wiebe, D. J., Gasparrini, A., & Humphreys, D. K. (2022). Analysis of “stand your ground” self-defense laws and statewide rates of homicides and firearm homicides. JAMA network open, 5(2), e220077-e220077. Web.
Dirlam, J., Steidley, T., & Jacobs, D. (2021). A Link to the Past: Race, Lynchings, and the Passage of Stand-Your-Ground Laws. The Sociological Quarterly, 62(4), 690-711. Web.
Duxbury, S. W. (2021). Who controls criminal law? Racial threat and the adoption of state sentencing law, 1975 to 2012. American Sociological Review, 86(1), 123-153. Web.
Long, L. J. (2021). The ideal victim: A critical race theory (CRT) approach. International Review of Victimology, 27(3), 344-362. Web.
Lythcott-Haims, J. (2018). Which lives matter, again?. TLS. Times Literary Supplement, (6020), 12-14. Web.
Mitchell, J. (2022). Deployments of Multiracial Masculinity and Anti-Black Violence: The Racial Framings of Barack Obama, George Zimmerman, and Daunte Wright. Social Sciences, 11(6), 238. Web.
Nickerson, C. (2021). Rational choice theory. Simply Psychology, 15. Web.
Sampson, R. J., Wilson, W. J., & Katz, H. (2018). Reassessing “Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequality”: Enduring and new challenges in 21st century America. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 15(1), 13-34.
Schell, T. L., Cefalu, M., Griffin, B. A., Smart, R., & Morral, A. R. (2020). Changes in firearm mortality following the implementation of state laws regulating firearm access and use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14906-14910. Web.
Shepperd, J. A., Pogge, G., Losee, J. E., Lipsey, N. P., & Redford, L. (2018). Gun attitudes on campus: United and divided by safety needs. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(5), 616-625. Web.
Tumin, R. (2022). Trayvon Martin case (George Zimmerman). The New York Times, 7. Web.
Ukert, B., Wiebe, D. J., & Humphreys, D. K. (2018). Regional differences in the impact of the “stand your ground” law in Florida. Preventive Medicine, 115, 68-75. Web.
Wierenga, C. (2020). Reimagining criminal justice: The disparate impact of the ‘castle’doctrine. Web.
Wortham, J., & LaPointe, W. (2020). How a new wave of black activists changed the conversation. The New York Times. Web.
Yakubovich, A. R., Esposti, M. D., Lange, B. C., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Parmar, A., Wiebe, D. J., & Humphreys, D. K. (2021). Effects of laws expanding civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense on violence and crime: a systematic review. American journal of public health, 111(4), e1-e14. Web.
Zhao, J., Wang, X., Zhang, H., & Zhao, R. (2021). Rational choice theory applied to an explanation of juvenile offender decision making in the Chinese setting. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 65(4), 434-457. Web.