Abstract
Statistics reveal that hate crimes in the United States have increased for the past two years in a row. From 2014 to 2016, the number of reported hate crimes has increased from 5,479 in 2014, to 5,850 in 2015, to 6,121 in 2016. These numbers do not include crimes that were not shared with the FBI by local law enforcement, or crimes that were not reported to the police at all. Early indicators reveal that the number of hate crimes in 2017 is expected to further continue this upward trend. The current social and political climate has raised much concern regarding the reported increase in hate crimes, and the safety of persons who may be the targets of bias-motivated crime. One concern that has not received much attention in the scholarly literature or otherwise is the intersection of hate crimes and Stand Your Ground laws. Stand Your Ground laws remove the “duty to retreat” requirement in claims of self-defense, and permit a person to use any force necessary to protect oneself when in a public place that the person has a right to occupy. Empirical research on Stand Your Ground laws indicates that these laws contributed to an increase in homicide rates in states that offer Stand Your Ground as a legal defense, and that these laws have an implicit racial bias that affects the outcome of Stand Your Ground criminal cases. As written, these laws offer much subjectivity to the person employing the Stand Your Ground defense. This study examines the use of Stand Your Ground laws as a legal defense and suggests that, given the current social and political climate, these laws need to be modified to ensure that violence against others because of bias or prejudice cannot be translated into fear for one’s safety, and therefore, a justifiable defense for hate crimes.
Highlights
On August 11th and 12th of 2017, members of various white nationalist groups came together in Charlottesville, Virginia for what leaders calledJOURNAL OF HATE STUDIESVol 15:83 the “Unite the Right” rally
The purpose of this study is to examine the potential misuse of Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws as a defense for committing hate crimes, and to offer recommendations to ensure that such laws do not protect individuals who attempt to escape prosecution for hate crimes behind the SYG immunity
The cases selected for inclusion in this analysis were chosen based upon the competing narratives of the accused as a person lawfully acting in self-defense, versus the accused as a person who abused the broad immunity from prosecution that SYG legislation offers
Summary
Vol 15:83 the “Unite the Right” rally. The groups had assembled to protest the removal of the statue of Confederate general Robert E. Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws remove the “duty to retreat” requirement in claims of self-defense and replace it with a “shoot first” ideology, permitting a person to use any force necessary to protect him/herself or others while in a public place that the person invoking the SYG defense has a right to occupy. This defense is based primarily upon the subjective interpretation of the situation from the person who used deadly force. The purpose of this study is to examine the potential misuse of SYG laws as a defense for committing hate crimes, and to offer recommendations to ensure that such laws do not protect individuals who attempt to escape prosecution for hate crimes behind the SYG immunity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
