 |
| John Locke |
What would John Locke say about stand-your-ground self-defense law?
Before we discuss how Locke might answer this question, we should get clear on the meaning of “self-defense law”, “stand-your-ground law,” and “duty to retreat.”
There are two types of self-defense laws. Traditional self-defense laws give persons who are under threat of personal harm the right to defend themselves from the threat by responding with deadly force, provided that the threatened person has no way to retreat.
For example, Esther approaches Conrad, pushes him against a wall, displays a sharp knife, and demands that Conrad hand over his wallet. But Esther does not notice that Conrad is carrying a gun. He quickly pulls the gun out of his pocket, and shoots Esther.
It is lawful for Conrad to do this. This is so, even if Esther had not hurt Conrad, and even if she never said that she would kill or even hurt him if he does not do her bidding. The knife she is waving in Conrad’s face is a sufficient threat of personal harm and Conrad had no reasonable way to retreat.
It is the “duty to retreat” provision that marks the difference between traditional and stand-your-ground self-defense legislation. In traditional self-defense law, a person who is under an imminent threat of personal harm must retreat from the threat if this is reasonably possible before responding with deadly force. “Nearly half of U.S. states adhere to this standard, including New York, Iowa, and Hawaii.” (Find Law). For example, if Esther is in a wheelchair waving her knife at Conrad who is standing in front of the chair, and Conrad can move away, then he has a duty to do so. If he takes out his gun and kills Esther, he cannot plead self-defense.
The second type of self-defense laws remove the duty to retreat provision. These laws establish a right to stand one's ground when one is confronted with a threat of personal harm. There is no legal duty to turn and run. Conrad can legally “stand his ground” in front of Esther's wheelchair, take out his gun, shoot and kill Esther before she can get close enough to stab him.
What would John Locke add to this debate? What version of self-defense law would he support? Traditional or stand-your-ground?
In his discussion of the state of war in Second Treatise of Government, Locke argues that persons who are enslaved have the right to resist. The resistance might involve killing the person who enslaves them. When Locke uses the words “enslaving” he means “getting another person into his power without that person’s consent” (§17). If someone attempts to make me a slave, then he "would use me as he pleased," even killing me if this is what he pleases to do. This act of enslaving me, therefore, puts himself into a state of war with me: “He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest. “(§17).
Locke then applies this logic to other situations in which someone tries to take away his freedom. Locke’s most famous example is that of a thief who has him in his power. (The word “thief” in today's vernacular means “robber” or “armed robber”):
“[It is] lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life… Using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretense be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.” (§18)
Let’s return to the two self-defense scenarios and apply Locke’s criteria for justifiable killing. In the first case (traditional self-defense), it is lawful for Conrad to kill Esther because she “has him in her power.” For all he knows, Esther might kill him after he has given her his wallet. It is this fact that makes it justifiable for Conrad to go for his gun and kill Esther before she kills him.
In the second scenario (stand-your-ground), Esther is in a wheelchair, approaching Conard, waving her knife, and shouting death threats. But Esther does not have Conrad in her power. Conrad is not her temporary slave. Her death threats are empty because Conrad can easily retreat from the scene.
This fact (lack of power) shows a significant difference between stand-your-ground and traditional self-defense law. Conrad has a duty to retreat because Esther lacks the power to take away his liberty. Although Locke does not mention retreating as a duty, he would object to our killing those who would like to take away our liberty but have no power to do so.
To summarize, stand-your-ground laws give the victim more latitude to kill a robber than ordinary self-defense laws. The difference between the two is that under traditional self-defense law you (the defendant) must show that you could not have retreated from the situation you perceived as dangerous. You have a duty to retreat when this is reasonably possible.
But under stand-your-ground legislation there is no such duty. Even if you see a way out of the situation, you are justified in either disabling or killing the person you believe is threatening you.
If Locke was here to answer our question, he would probably say that it all depends on what it means to say "get me into his power." If I see a safe way to escape, then I am no longer in the power of the armed robber, and accordingly, it would not be "lawful" for me to kill the robber. If stand-your-ground laws would justify killing a person who threatens me but does not have me in their power, then Locke would not endorse this legislation. People who kill others who have threatened them but do not have them in their power have crossed the line between self-defense and homicide.
No comments:
Post a Comment