Castle doctrine
A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used. The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.
Depending on the location, a person may have a duty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines lessen the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted within one's own home. Deadly force may either be justified, the burdens of production and proof for charges impeded, or an affirmative defense against criminal homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another." The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in many jurisdictions. Castle doctrines may not provide civil immunity, such as from wrongful death suits, which have a much lower burden of proof.
Justifiable homicide is a legally blameless killing in self-defense. A justifiable homicide that occurs within the home is distinct as a matter of law from castle doctrine, because the mere occurrence of trespassing—and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine, under which the burden of proof of fact is much less challenging than that of justifying homicide in self-defense. However, the existence in a legal code of such a provision does not imply the creation of a castle doctrine protecting the estate and exonerating any duty to retreat. The use of this legal principle in the United States has been controversial in relation to a number of cases in which it has been invoked, including the deaths of Japanese exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori and Scottish businessman Andrew de Vries.
History
The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western civilization since the age of the Roman Republic. In English common law the term is derived from the dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle". This concept was established as English law by the 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628:The term 'castle' was defined in 1763 by Prime Minister William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter."
English common law came with colonists to the New World, where it has become known as the castle doctrine. The term has been used in England to imply a person's absolute right to exclude anyone from their home, although this has always had restrictions, such as bailiffs having increasing powers of entry since the late-20th century.
According to 18th-century Presbyterian minister and biblical commentator Matthew Henry, the prohibition of murder found in the Old Testament contains an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the thief owes no blood-debt to the home-defender; but if the thief lives, he owes a blood-debt to the home-defender and must make restitution."
In the early United States
By the 18th century, many US state legal systems began by importing English common law such as Acts of Parliament of 2 Ed. III, and 5 Rich. II in law since 1381—which imposed criminal sanctions intending to discourage the resort to self-help. This required a threatened party to retreat, whenever property was "involved" and resolve the issue by civil means.Then as now, there were English politicians who were for or against the use of self-help over state-help. William Blackstone, in Book 4, Chapter 16 of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, proclaims that the laws "leave him the natural right of killing the aggressor " and goes on to generalize in the following words:
Not only was the doctrine considered to justify defense against neighbors and criminals, but any of the Crown's agents who attempted to enter without a proper warrant as well. Prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution share a common background with current castle doctrine laws.
In 1841, The Preemption Act was passed to "appropriate the proceeds of the sales of public lands... and to grant 'pre-emption rights' to individuals" who were already living on federal lands. During this same period, claim clubs sprung up all over the US advocating vigilance and the castle doctrine. This was in concurrence with the culture of manifest destiny which led to westward expansion and the American Indian Wars, the last of which ended by the 1920s.
On the American frontier
On the American frontier, the doctrine of no duty to retreat extended outside a residence. It asserted that a man in an altercation that he did not provoke was not obliged to flee from his attacker, but was free to stand his ground and defend himself. A state Supreme Court justice wrote in 1877,American West historian Richard M. Brown wrote that under the circumstances, for a man in the American West to flee under such circumstances would be cowardly and un-American.
Legendary dentist and gambler Doc Holliday successfully used this defense when he shot Billy Allen as he entered a saloon. Holliday owed Allen $5 which Allen wanted paid and had threatened Holliday. Although Allen was unarmed at the time, Holliday had received reports that Allen had been armed and looking for him earlier in the day. During the subsequent trial, Holliday asserted he was within his rights and the jury agreed. He was acquitted on March 28, 1885.
In Ancient China
In Ancient China, various versions of the castle doctrine existed. According to Han dynasty legal scholar, the doctrine extends protection onto rooms and other place of dwelling, vehicles, and ships: "It is not guilty to immediately assault and kill someone who, without cause, enters another's room or place of dwelling, vehicle, or ship, and with the intention of committing a crime." During the Qin dynasty, the laws further extend castle doctrine protection against intrusion by the police or officials during the night. According to the Laws Governing Arrests : "It is forbidden for the police to enter other's room or place of dwelling during the night for the purpose of conducting an arrest, if the police violate this law, and is injured by the room, the police shall be treated as someone who enters another's room without cause" . In the later Han dynasty, the most extreme interpretation of the doctrine was enacted, making it legal for those in a dwelling to assault and kill anyone, including the police and other officials, who enters a house during the night, regardless of cause.Later dynasties such as the Tang, Ming, and Qing retained the doctrine but only during the night, and extending protection only for the owner of the dwelling: making it legal for the owner a house to assault and kill trespassers at night without being guilty of crime, and without being charged or the need to argue one's case before a court. For example, the Tang Code states that "If someone enters someone else's house without reason at night, they will be lashed with forty strokes. If the homeowner kills the intruder immediately, there will be no charges. The Great Ming Code states "Anyone who enters someone else's house at night without reason will be punished with eighty strokes of the cane. If the homeowner kills the intruder immediately, there will be no charges".
The Chinese version of the castle doctrine is most likely a reflection of contemporary popular attitude, articulated in numerous historical poems and literature, that anyone who enters a civil dwelling at night is presumed to be either a rapist or a thief/robber.
Current position
Today, the penal and civil forcible-entry laws of most American states forbid the use of force in the recovery of possession of land. At most the Castle Doctrine is an affirmative defense for individuals inevitably charged with criminal homicide, not a permission or pretext to commit homicide—which is generally unlawful. A minority of states permit individuals who have the right of immediate possession of land to use reasonable force to regain possession of that land, with Texas being the only state to allow the use of deadly force to regain possession of land or property.The term "make my day law" came to be used in the United States in 1985 when Colorado passed a law that shielded people from any criminal or civil liability for using force against a home invader, including deadly force.
Conditions of use
Each jurisdiction incorporates the castle doctrine into its laws in different ways. The circumstance in which it may be invoked include the premises covered, the degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance required before deadly force can be used, etc. Typical conditions that apply to some castle doctrine laws include:- An intruder must be making an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle.
- The intruder must be acting unlawfully.
- The occupant of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.
- In Connecticut, the occupant of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion; or, provoked/instigated an intruder's threat or use of deadly force. In all cases, the occupant of the home: must be there legally; must not be fugitives from the law themselves, or aiding/abetting other fugitives; and must not use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal duty.