CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
4
Yes. No.
Debate Score:8
Arguments:7
Total Votes:11
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (2)
 
 No. (4)

Debate Creator

Grugore(849) pic



Should the Castle Doctrine be a Federal Law?

Some states have something called the Castle Doctrine. What that means is that if someone breaks into your home, you can use deadly force to defend yourself. In some states, you can't do this. Shouldn't it be a right for everyone in the country to protect themselves and their loved ones, in their own home?

Yes.

Side Score: 4
VS.

No.

Side Score: 4
2 points

Yes, although (obviously) it should come with restrictions, such as if the intruder is fleeing, or a kid, then deadly force should be barred.

Side: Yes.

I support the right of people to defend self and country. The Second Amendment protects this.

Side: Yes.
Atrag(5550) Disputed
1 point

That is not an argument. "I agree because I think its good!"

Side: No.
1 point

I can see this law being manipulated in many ways. Especially to plot and kill a person that the patron may know.

Side: No.
1 point

Imagine the scenario:

A 10 year old goes to a bad school and gets involved with a gang. One night they tell him he has to sneak through the cat flap into someone's house a steal something or they are going to kill his family. So he creeps into the house. He encounters a man twice his size holding a shotgun. The man coolly points the shotgun at his head, tells the terrified boy to get on his knees, and then shoots him in the back of the head. This is legal under the 'castle doctrine' in the USA.

The force used should be equal to the threat that you perceive yourself to be under (this is the English law on self-defence). You can't kill someone just because they are in the act of doing something wrong to you.

Side: No.
0 points

Could be manipulated sooo much. You could do a Pistorius and claim you "thought" they were a thief ( when you downright murdered someone you knew).

Side: No.
Stickers(1037) Clarified
1 point

I get what you're saying, but in that case, wouldn't the proof that the person was threatening their life be awfully scanty, even if it could somehow be falsely proven that they were a thief?

In current stand-your-ground law regions, there are a fair number of questions being asked on a case-by-case basis already, the cops don't just say:

"derp you drag the body out of here, while I get someone wipe off those chalk lines"

Opposing the right to use deadly force in any circumstance when a home is being invaded does not necessitate being against castle doctrine.

tl;dr: If you agree that citizens being obligated to retreat from their homes when they are being invaded is a stupid idea, and that using deadly force with a concern for your own life (not loss of property, which would invalidate the thief example) as determined as legitimate by jurors is sensible, you should support castle doctrine.

Side: Yes.