The Promise and Hazards of Armed Self-Protection: Analyzing the Racial and Gender Implications of Justifiable Homicide and the Effects of ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws

Abstract

In response to a growing national desire for armed self-protection, most states have passed Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws. These laws expand legal immunities for the use of self-defense and allow law enforcement personnel to preempt jury rulings of justifiable homicides. In this thesis, I empirically investigate the application of self-defense protections along racial and gender lines. I also examine the causal impact of SYG adoption on the classification of homicides as self-defensive. Using regression analyses of the CDC’s National Violent Death Reporting System, I find strong evidence that racial and gender disparities lie in justifiability determinations. These determinations especially favor self-defense claims made by White men and women against Black male strangers, even in the absence of a preceding felony (e.g., robbery or sexual assault). Applying a difference-in-differences strategy, I find suggestive evidence that the passage of an SYG law increases the prospect that a homicide will be deemed justifiable, particularly in the absence of clear proof of self-defense. Taking together, the findings in this thesis indicate that the promise of self-protection is neither race-blind nor gender-neutral, and the expansion of legal self-defense protections may inadvertently broaden the authorized use of lethal violence.