New Study: SYG Kills People

[Loosedhorse]

So it continues. Related to both the Martin-Zimmerman threads and the religion/science thread, we have a new study that is claiming that SYG results in more deaths.

http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf (They are calling the FL 2005 law "Castle doctrine", while most of us call it SYG.)

Specifically, we find no evidence of deterrence effects on burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. Moreover, our estimates are sufficiently precise as to rule out meaningful deterrence effects.

In contrast, we find significant evidence that the laws increase homicides. Suggestive but inconclusive evidence indicates that castle doctrine laws increase the narrowly defined category of justifiable homicides by private citizens by 17 to 50 percent, which translates into as many as 50 additional justifiable homicides per year nationally due to castle doctrine. More significantly, we find the laws increase murder and manslaughter by a statistically significant 7 to 9 percent, which translates into an additional 500 to 700 homicides per year nationally across the states that adopted castle doctrine.

Thus, by lowering the expected costs associated with using lethal force, castle doctrine laws induce more of it. This increase in homicides could be due either to the increased use of lethal force in self-defense situations, or to the escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal conflicts. We suspect that self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase, as we also find that murder alone is increased by a statistically significant 6 to 11 percent.

See also here: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/11/...s/?mod=djemWLB

I've said for a while we've been a bit too smug, claiming that Lott "proves" that pro-gun laws decrease crime. Now, while we've been looking at Heller and MacDonald, we've left the back door open. We see more and more claims that Lott has been "debunked" (see here) and we will see (I predict) more and more studies saying that a "lack of" gun control kills people.

I'm sure a study about children and kittens being most at risk will follow. Kidding aside, these "scientific" studies will influence the politics.

A lot. Science is unlikely to be our friend here.

[KodiakBeer]

(They are calling the FL 2005 law "Castle doctrine", while most of us call it SYG.)

Uh no, most of us call castle doctrine "castle doctrine" and stand your ground "stand your ground". Two different laws and two different concepts confused by whoever did the study.

[Mr. James]

castle doctrine laws increase the narrowly defined category of justifiable homicides by private citizens by 17 to 50 percent

Good. Rising justifiable homicides mean more dead predators.

[Carl N. Brown]

I have seen this before and I'll repeat myself:

The actual article itself is linked at:
http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf
Cheng Cheng and Mark Hoekstra, "Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Castle Doctrine", 29 May 2012.

This looks like a working paper, and would not be taken seriously academically until it had been schlepped around an American Society of Criminology conference or two, subjected to comment or evaluation, and finally published under peer review, with release of all data and math used in the statistical evaluation.

There is an article on it, and commentary at:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/11/...ase-homicides/
Wall Street Journal Law Blog



I am admitedly a layman, but I have problems with the use of the FBI Uniform Crime Report figures on "the killing of a felon during commission of a felony, by a private citizen".

The fine print in the FBI UCR itself points out that the justifiable homicide stat does not include adjudication by coroner, medical examiner, prosecutor, grand jury, trial jury or appellate court. In any given year, fifteen to twenty states don't report that stat to the FBI. The FBI does have a guidebook on how to report justifiable homicides, but only 30 to 35 states (60 to 75% of all states) do so in any given year, and there is no guarantee the police reports would match eventual adjudication in the courts. The reporting agency would have to perform much the same steps as the judicial system to determine the classification of a homicide as justifiable or criminal.

The FBI UCR justifiable homicide is adjudication in a police report. As Gary Kleck, Marvin Wolfgang and other criminologists have pointed out, adjudication of justifiable homicide in police reports is a fraction of homicides eventually adjudicated as justifiable by the criminal justice system. Criminologists who have looked at the subject say the FBI UCR JH stat needs be multiplied by 4 to 7 times to estimate the number of homicides eventually adjudicated as self defense further up the judicial system than the police report level.

I suspect that what changes after Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground is not necessarily the total number of justifiable homicides, but the number of homicides listed as justifiable in initial police reports for statistical purposes, since CD or SYG makes it easier for police to make that judgement.

As far as CD or SYG increasing total homicides, total homicide has been declining or staying flat in total raw numbers.

[Carl N. Brown]

NBER Working Papers
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/nbrnberwo/
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/nbrnberwo/18134.htm

Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Castle Doctrine

Cheng Cheng and Mark Hoekstra

No 18134, NBER Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc

Abstract: Since Florida adopted the first castle doctrine law in 2005, more than 20 other states have passed similar self-defense laws that justify the use of deadly force in a wider set of circumstances. Elements of these laws include removing the duty to retreat in places outside of one’s home, adding a presumption of reasonable belief of imminent harm necessitating a lethal response, and removing civil liability for those acting under the law. This paper examines whether aiding self-defense in this way deters crime or, alternatively, escalates violence. To do so, we apply a difference-in-differences research design by exploiting the within-state variation in law adoption. We find no evidence of deterrence; burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault are unaffected by the laws. On the other hand, we find that murder and non-negligent manslaughter are increased by 7 to 9 percent. This could represent either increased use of lethal force in self-defense situations, or the escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal situations. Regardless, the results indicate that a primary consequence of strengthening self-defense law is increased homicide.

JEL-codes: K0 K14

I think some of the op-eds and commentary are making more of this paper than is there.

[Lanius]

Justifiable homicide lowers public costs and removes people who are difficult to employ anyway.

Curiously, in Czech Republic socialists too are pushing for something like Castle Doctrine -to make it permissible to shoot someone dead, on your property, even if cannot be proven they threatened you.

Right now one guy who shot, at night, a burglar, with a crossbow is in trouble, because apparently the critter turned his head and ended up with the bolt sticking out of his ear...

[Loosedhorse]

two different concepts confused by whoever did the study.

Correction accepted. I agree, but was "trying to be nice."

The actual article itself is linked at:
http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf

Yes...as I said. I agree with your UCR concerns.

As far as CD or SYG increasing total homicides, total homicide has been declining or staying flat in total raw numbers.

Even in states with a SYG? If so, how are they claiming an "increase" in homicides in states with SYG (Castle) laws?

I think some of the op-eds and commentary are making more of this paper than is there.

We will see a LOT of that. "Climate change" is the only other topic I've seen besides gun control where the media goes so clearly out of its way to state that things that haven't been proven have.

Media tries to (and often does) lead politics, and politics leads study-funding. Expect that a LOT more anti-gun studies are either being done or proposed right now, and they will be funded and reported on.

BTW, to state the obvious: the study in saying they have evidence that "the laws increase homicides" is committing the most basic correlation-as-causation logical error...

...And I'm not sure there's even correlation, yet.

[Carl N. Brown]

My narrow definition of SYG includes all three of the article's
definitions in Table 1 State Castle Doctrine Laws:
"no DTR" "presumption of reasonable fear" and "no civil liablity".

(Note: if the authors used three elements to determine "Castle Doctrine" how did they determine effective date?)

Homicide rates of States with No Duty to Retreat, Presumption of Reasonable
Fear, and No Civil Liablity in Self-Defense Laws ("Stand Your Ground")
bold ital marks years with SYG
             2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010
Arizona       7.0   7.5   7.1   7.9   7.2   7.5   8.5   8.7   7.0   5.8   6.4
Florida       5.6   5.3   5.5   5.4   5.4   5.0   6.2   6.6   6.3   5.5   5.2
Kentucky      4.8   4.4   4.7   4.4   5.7   4.6   4.2   5.1   4.7   4.3   4.3
Louisiana    12.5  11.2  13.2  13.0  12.7  10.0  13.1  14.7  12.2  11.8  11.2
Mississippi   9.0   9.9   9.2   9.3   7.8   7.4   8.0   7.0   8.0   6.6   7.0
Tennessee     7.2   7.4   7.3   6.8   6.1   7.2   7.0   6.6   6.6   7.4   5.6
Texas         5.9   6.2   6.0   6.4   6.1   6.1   5.9   5.9   5.6   5.4   5.0

This is raw unweighted FBI figures on Criminal Homicide (murder, the only homicide I worry about increasing).*

Removing duty to retreat if a reasonable person would be in fear of imminent loss of life or limb, shifting burden of proof of unreasonable use of force to the prosecution, and removing civil liability in justified use of force, does not appear to flood the gutters with rivers of blood or stack bodies in the hallway of the local morgue.

------------------------------------------
*On the other hand, the FBI UCR criminal homicide stat includes the vast majority of justifiable homicides, see dicussion of this below:
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/...mlive_spe.html
John Barnes, "Justified to kill: Why there are more self-defense killings in Michigan than anyone knows", MLive, Michigan News, 12 June 2012.

[lefteye]

Compare this: New Report: U.S. Homicide Rate Falls to Lowest Rate in Four Decades, November 18th, 2011 Posted by Tracy Russo

http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/1765

There seems to be a little conflict in the "analysis" of the data by the NBER scholars.

[SomeKid]

Propoganda is unlikely to be our friend here.

Fixed it for you.

[Carl N. Brown]

Got woke up and decided to lull myself to sleep web surfing, and found this article posted with comment at John Lott's blog 6/13/2012 2:08AM (guess I'm not the only insomniac):

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/...mlive_spe.html
John Barnes, "Justified to kill: Why there are more self-defense killings in Michigan than anyone knows", MLive, Michigan News, 12 June 2012.
[quote]

Officially, there were 117 justifiable homicides involving civilians in Michigan from 2000 to 2010. Another 95 were killed by police, according to the statistics.

One reason those numbers are low is simple, MLive’s investigation found.

Police are reporting the cases as criminal homicides. When it’s later determined to be justifiable, they don’t change the easy-to-recode electronic records. It’s as simple as changing a “1” to a “4.”

That was the case in Kalamazoo County, where FBI statistics show only one justifiable homicide between 2000 and 2010. There were eight, three by civilians and five by police, MLive found.

The article is part of series on the under-reporting of self defense in Michigan.

Gun control advocates like to "debunk" the Kleck & Gertz figure of 2.4 million defensive gun uses (projected for 1993 year of the NSDS survey) by citing stats like "In 2004, the FBI UCR showed there were only 176 justifiable homicides by shooting" as though the only DGU is JH. Not only is justifiable homicide just a fraction of defensive gun use (most are chase-offs), the FBI UCR figures are just a fraction of justifiable homicides.

ADDED: just you wait: if the broken method of FBI UCR justifiable homicide reporting is fixed: the antis will go crazy claiming RTC or SYG has increased homicide by 500%!

[Loosedhorse]

Fixed it for you.

It has long been my contention that when scientists get involved in politics to increase their chance of government funding, the only thing they can produce is propaganda.

In that context, there is no distinction between science and propaganda. (I'll spare us all a Godwin.)

if the broken method of FBI UCR justifiable homicide reporting is fixed: the antis will go crazy claiming RTC or SYG has increased homicide by 500%!

Bingo.

This is a very well know phenomenon in epidemiology. Perhaps at some point we've heard the alarmist reports about the soaring incidence of things like "autism" and ADHD. Well, as autism became expanded to "autism spectrum" and publicized; and as public schools began to get special accommodations for rowdy, disruptive kids IF they were diagnosed with ADHD, the number of diagnoses went up.

The only surprise is that the "researchers" involved in this paper either don't know that...or do and chose not to mention it. Surprise.

[Selena]

This is a very well know phenomenon in epidemiology. Perhaps at some point we've heard the alarmist reports about the soaring incidence of things like "autism" and ADHD. Well, as autism became expanded to "autism spectrum" and publicized; and as public schools began to get special accommodations for rowdy, disruptive kids IF they were diagnoses with ADHD, the number of diagnoses went up.

The only surprise is that the "researchers" involved in this paper either don't know that...or do and chose not to mention it. Surprise.

I once read a paper (tongue in cheek, I hope) that statistically proved that ashtrays cause lung cancer. This one sounds to be very much related.

[Loosedhorse]

The Zimmerman-Martin shooting and some other cases like the one mentioned here (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/s...trial-16550563) are making some peple ask a very reasonable question: Do SYG laws embolden some legally armed people into initiating, prolonging and/or escalating a confrontation that eventually results in a claimed "self-defense" shooting?

While it is a reasonable question to ask, it is almost impossible to answer, except (imperfectly) on a case-by-case basis. However, I am sure we will soon be offered many "scientific" and "proven" answers to that question, and I predict they will all give this "answer":

"Yes, SYG laws do embolden people, and arguments escalating into shootings that were easily avoidable are happening." With the exception of some here, very few people are going to take any increase in shootings as a good thing.

[KodiakBeer]

With the exception of some here, very few people are going to take any increase in shootings as a good thing.

Are you suggesting that the inverse; an increase in rapes, beatings, robberies, car-jackings would be better?

[Loosedhorse]

No--do you have "proof" that, without SYG, rapes, etc. would have gone up?

That's my point here. I think we will start to see a whole lot of studies claiming to prove that SYG results in all sorts of bad things--maybe even foot odor and tooth decay. I do not predict a similar flood of studies "proving" that SYG prevented assaults and other crimes.

(I hesitate to add, given the audience here: suppose a study were to show that, for example, proeprty crimes were down, but homicides were up? Well, one camp might think it was terrible that folks are being killed to prevent theft, and another that "it's about time those thieves got what they deserve!" Which is the more numerous camp?)

In any case, if you think "More Guns, Less Crime" still has the mojo to counter any new studies...I'm not at all sure that's how it'll play out.

Perhaps folks here remember the flood of anti-gun medical studies that came out just before (and were extremely important in influencing) the passage of the 1994 federal AWB. Expect another flood.

[KodiakBeer]

No--do you have "proof" that, without SYG, rapes, etc. would have gone up?

No, I would only suggest that less people would be prosecuted for defending themselves. Common sense tells me that a woman with a gun is less likely to be raped and more likely to shoot a rapist. Any "study" that wants to tenuously link the increase in dead rapists to a change in self defense laws is on pretty shaky ground.

Such laws in themselves don't change actions (who will own or carry or use a gun). SYG or CD laws only protect us from liberal prosecutors, not from criminals.

[Loosedhorse]

Any "study" that wants to tenuously link the increase in dead rapists to a change in self defense laws is on pretty shaky ground.

I am sure that the studies will be careful to obscure that the increased homicides involve dead rapists, if that is the case.

They actually won't have to try hard. The way the data is collected, the "activity" of the deceased just before he was shot is not captured, even if the fact that the shooting was "justified" sometimes is.

And, of course, there's the fact that the supposed rapist, in dying without being brought to trial, died a legally innocent man. Although there is this to consider :

Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRA5FBtbHHM

(Sorry about the ad; skip to 2:15.)

[thesecond]

KB is on the right track .... if you're interested in advocating FOR self-defense and firearms-rights.

There is a media-driven push to create the impression that deterrence (as 'tabulated' in their homicide 'statistics) is the PRIMARY policy-rationale for SYG-type provisions. Because 'homicide numbers' aren't going down (i.e., People aren't being sufficiently deterred from killing), the policy, therefore, is wrong.

It would behoove us to comprehend, at the least:

(1) the history of the English common-law 'duty to retreat' and the development of the English common-law right to self-defense, the failings of the common-law duty to retreat in the several States (e.g., as demonstrated by egregious cases in States like MA and NY),

(2) the actual reasons for common-law exceptions being carved out of the common-law 'duty to retreat' in the VAST majority of States long before any 'codification' of these principles (e.g., no duty to retreat in one's abode, no DTR in public against forcible felony),

(3) the actual reasons for each State's 'codification' of those common-law exceptions, the actual reasons for a given State's addition of contexts (e.g., no DTR in automobiles) in which the duty to retreat should not apply, and

(4) the fact that DTR becomes a factor in (and no longer a pre-requisite to) determining the justifiability of one's actions in self-defense.

So many more 'reasons' NOT premised on simply lowering homicide counts. As I've mentioned many times before, a legislature may set policy, and develop 'reasons', on a basis other than statistical probability.

This 'paper' is bunk in so many, many, many ways.

[swgunner]

I would mention the number of guns sold in the last decade and compare crime rates now to crime during the Great Depression.

The interesting thing that made step-dad actually think guns laws don't help other than a MidwayUSA catalog, was an article about all the guns sold since we elected our current president and a following article that stated that is the lowest its been since the 50's.

Brady and VPC would have us believe the opposite, but the numbers are there for anyone to verify.

[Carl N. Brown]

I think we will start to see a whole lot of studies claiming to prove that SYG results in all sorts of bad things--maybe even foot odor and tooth decay. I do not predict a similar flood of studies "proving" that SYG prevented assaults and other crimes.

Part of the problem is that one can quantify instances of foot odor or tooth decay (measured by agency X using criteria Y) against prevalance of gun ownership in a jurisdiction (measured by NICS BG checks, subscriptions to Guns & Ammo, NRA memberships).

And you can count crimes that are reported (FBI UCR) or projected by survey (NCVS).

But, there is no way to count deterred crimes (criminals don't report thwarted crimes to the FBI UCR program) and surveys like the National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck & Gertz 1994) or NIJ felon survey (Wright & Rossi 1986) get dismissed as guestimates on crimes deterred.

[Loosedhorse]

I've said for a while we've been a bit too smug, claiming that Lott "proves" that pro-gun laws decrease crime.

So many more 'reasons' NOT premised on simply lowering homicide counts. As I've mentioned many times before, a legislature may set policy, and develop 'reasons', on a basis other than statistical probability.

But, there is no way to count deterred crimes

We're saying the same thing.

I think to the extent we respond to such new studies with "it's just dead rapists" or by warming up and serving John Lott's old chestnut, we will find ourselves looking up, standing at the bottom of a deep, dark political hole.

Yes: instead we must (I think) emphasize two things:
1) (And this is easy) That our right to SD, recognized and championed in the Heller decision, demands that we not be forced to prove "we couldn't possibly have run away" in order to successfully assert that right as a legal justification for using deadly force.
2) (And this is hard) That we DO NOT condone anyone using SYG as a shield to (as was put nicely elsewhere) "go pick fights and shoot your way out, and call it 'self-defense.'"

Personally, I would not mind at all the civil immunity provision in SYG laws allowing civil cases to proceed where there is manifest and clear negligence, even when the defender committed no crime. I think we need that safety valve to deal with defenders who negligently cause the bad spot they were in, or choose to shoot someone when they have a clear, safe opportunity not to do that.

IMHO to the extent we be are immovable and exude the tone of "we have every right to stand our ground and 'deal with' any low-life who isn't repsectful enough to stay out of our ----ing way!", we are going to get steamrolled on this one. To the extent we take the tack of, "We all want to avoid unnecessary shootings, but not at the price of jailing someone who defended himself from unavoidable criminal attack," I think we're good.

That is, as thesecond says, "if you're interested in advocating FOR self-defense and firearms-rights."

[Carl N. Brown]

Even though Tennessee is a "Stand Your Ground" SYG state according to the article, I would anticipate the legal defense expenses in an actual self-defense case that goes to trial to be devastating for the average person. Plus loss of job, in addition to the drain on any assets, savings, IRA, etc. The usual rule is that the self-defender is presumed guilty of murder and must prove their innocence. (Which is why seven out of eight adjudicated justifiable homicides in Kalamazoo MI were still listed as murders with the FBI UCR.) SYG is supposed to put the burden of proving guilt on the prosecution, requiring evidence that meets probable cause standards.

I have pointed out other times other places that one of the studies championed by Kates (or was it Kleck) pointed out that the majority of homicides represent two people who have had altercations in the past, meeting on a Friday or Saturday night, one or both drunk or high, reigniting an old argument (lovers' quarrel, gambling debt, bad drug deal, etc.) and escalating out of control. THAT is the situation that "duty to retreat" DTR was intended to de-fuse. NOT the situation where an innocent citizen is attacked by a criminal.

From what I know about the Raul Rodriguez case in Texas, the description that came out in court did not match the ordinary self defense justification, much less a SYG situation, despite what Rodriguez, Brady and VPC claim that SYG means. Apparently the jury believed you don't go armed to a confrontation with someone against whom you have a grudge, on their home turf, and claim self-defense if the situation grows out of control because you won't leave. Especially if you videotape yourself being a confrontational stubborn jackass.

...that Lott "proves" that pro-gun laws decrease crime...

Well, to quote Lott's strongest (I say bitterest) opponent John J. Donohue III:

"We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."
--Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis", 55 Stanford Law Review 101 (2003)

[Old Grump]

New Study: SYG Kills People

So it continues. Related to both the Martin-Zimmerman threads and the religion/science thread, we have a new study that is claiming that SYG results in more deaths.

So what's the problem?

[Johnny Dollar]

So what's the problem?

There isn't any.