stand your ground law research paper

• Introduction
• Conclusions
• Article Information

Crosses indicate monthly homicide rates; blue solid lines, smoothed trends for observed rates; orange dotted lines, smoothed seasonality for observed rates; red dotted lines represent the enactment of SYG laws; and blue dotted lines, the smoothed trend for the counterfactual (ie, the expected trend in the absence of an SYG law).

IRR indicates incidence rate ratio, given as rate per 100 000 population.

Note each plot is grouped by US region (Midwest, Northeast, South, West) and ordered by estimated effect size. FE indicates fixed-effects.

eMethods. Stand Your Ground and Self-Defense Laws by State

eAppendix. Evidence of Nonlinear Trends, Nonpenalized Approach, and Restricted Linear Analyses

eFigure 1. Visualization of the Multiple Baselines Using Staggering of the Enactment of SYG Laws and Multiple Locations Using 23 SYG States During the Study Period, 1999 to 2017

eFigure 2. Data Visualization Showing the Suspected Coding Error in the Data for Race in Texas From September 2007 to February 2009

eFigure 3. Plots Showing Imputed Data by Bounded Random Sampling to Correct for the Suspected Coding Error in the Data for Race in Texas From September 2007 to February 2009

eFigure 4. Plots of Partial Autocorrelation Functions for GLMM With Linear Trends and GAMs for Homicide and Firearm Homicide

eFigure 5. Estimated Associations of SYG Laws With Monthly Homicide Rates Across the US

eFigure 6. Estimated Associations of SYG Laws With Monthly Firearm Homicide Rates Across the US

eFigure 7. Estimated Associations of SYG Laws With Monthly Suicide Rates Across the US

eFigure 8. Estimated Associations of SYG Laws With Monthly Firearm Suicide Rates Across the US

eFigure 9. Estimated Associations of SYG Laws With Monthly Homicide and Firearm Homicide Rates in SYG States by Restricted ITS Models With Linear Trends

eFigure 10. Forest Plot of Fixed-Effects Meta-analysis Pooling Restricted ITS Models With Linear Trends for the Association of SYG Laws With Homicide and Firearm Homicide Rates in SYG States

eFigure 11. State-Specific Associations of SYG Laws With Monthly Homicide Rates Estimated by Separate ITS Models With Nonlinear Trends for Each SYG State

eTable 1. Self-defense Laws Across All 50 US States (Excluding District of Columbia)

eTable 2. Intervention SYG States, Comparison Non-SYG States, and Excluded States

eTable 3. Outcomes and Their Corresponding Selected Cause of Death Group and ICD-10 Details

eTable 4. Data Outliers Caused by 1-Off Events

eTable 5. AIC Values for Different Combinations of Polynomials for Modelling State and National Trends in GLMMs for Homicides

eTable 6. Monthly Counts of Homicide, Firearm Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm Suicide in the Absence and Presence of SYG Laws

eTable 7. Estimated Associations of SYG Laws With Homicide and Firearm Homicide Rates Across the US Using Nonpenalized GLMMs With Polynomials

eTable 8. Estimated Association of SYG Laws With Homicide and Firearm Homicide Rates by Race Across the US Using Data With Suspected Errors

eReferences

• Error in Figure 3 JAMA Network Open Correction April 6, 2022
• State-Specific Heterogeneity in the Association of Stand Your Ground Laws With Firearm Violence JAMA Network Open Invited Commentary February 21, 2022 Michael Siegel, MD, MPH

See More About

Sign up for emails based on your interests, select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Get the latest research based on your areas of interest.

Others also liked.

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn

Degli Esposti M , Wiebe DJ , Gasparrini A , Humphreys DK. Analysis of “Stand Your Ground” Self-defense Laws and Statewide Rates of Homicides and Firearm Homicides. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):e220077. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0077

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Analysis of “Stand Your Ground” Self-defense Laws and Statewide Rates of Homicides and Firearm Homicides

• 1 Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
• 2 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
• 3 Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
• 4 Centre for Statistical Methodology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
• Invited Commentary State-Specific Heterogeneity in the Association of Stand Your Ground Laws With Firearm Violence Michael Siegel, MD, MPH JAMA Network Open
• Correction Error in Figure 3 JAMA Network Open

Question   Are “stand your ground” (SYG) laws associated with increases in violent deaths, and does this vary by US state?

Findings   In this cohort study assessing 41 US states, SYG laws were associated with an 8% to 11% national increase in monthly rates of homicide and firearm homicide. State-level increases in homicide and firearm homicide rates reached 10% or higher for many Southern states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana.

Meaning   These findings suggest that SYG laws were associated with increased homicides each year and that the laws should be reconsidered to prevent unnecessary violent deaths.

Importance   Most US states have amended self-defense laws to enhance legal immunities for individuals using deadly force in public. Despite concerns that “stand your ground” (SYG) laws unnecessarily encourage the use of deadly violence, their impact on violent deaths and how this varies across states and demographic groups remains unclear.

Objective   To evaluate the association of SYG laws with homicide and firearm homicide, nationally and by state, while considering variation by the race, age, and sex of individuals who died by homicide.

Design, Setting, and Participants   This cohort study used a controlled, multiple-baseline and -location interrupted time series design, using natural variation in the timings and locations of SYG laws to assess associations. Changes in homicide and firearm homicide were modeled using Poisson regression analyses within a generalized additive model framework. Analyses included all US states that enacted SYG laws between 2000 and 2016 and states that did not have SYG laws enacted during the full study period, 1999 to 2017. Data were analyzed from November 2019 to December 2020.

Exposures   SYG self-defense laws enacted by statute between January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016.

Main Outcomes and Measures   The main outcomes were statewide monthly rates of homicide and firearm-related homicide (per 100 000 persons) from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2017, grouped by characteristics (ie, race, age, sex) of individuals who died by homicide.

Results   Forty-one states were analyzed, including 23 states that enacted SYG laws during the study period and 18 states that did not have SYG laws, with 248 358 homicides (43.7% individuals aged 20-34 years; 77.9% men and 22.1% women), including 170 659 firearm homicides. SYG laws were associated with a mean national increase of 7.8% in monthly homicide rates (incidence rate ratio [IRR],1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P  < .001) and 8.0% in monthly firearm homicide rates (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13; P  = .002). SYG laws were not associated with changes in the negative controls of suicide (IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.01) or firearm suicide (IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02). Increases in violent deaths varied across states, with the largest increases (16.2% to 33.5%) clustering in the South (eg, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana). There were no differential associations of SYG laws by demographic group.

Conclusions and Relevance   These findings suggest that adoption of SYG laws across the US was associated with increases in violent deaths, deaths that could potentially have been avoided.

Every year, more than 19 000 people in the United States die from homicide, and most of these violent deaths are attributable to injuries sustained from firearms. Rates of homicide and firearm homicide are markedly higher in the US than any other high-income county. 1 - 3 In 2020, the US saw a further upsurge, with homicide rates increasing by approximately 30%. 4 These deaths are preventable; yet there is limited evidence on how current legislation and policy may not only be failing to prevent harm but may also be contributing to it. 5

“Stand your ground” (SYG) laws, also known as shoot first laws, overwrite the common law principle of a “duty to retreat,” creating the possibility for individuals to use deadly force in self-defense in public as a first, rather than last, resort (eMethods in the Supplement ). 6 Florida was the first state to enact an SYG law by statute in 2005, and then 23 states enacted SYG laws soon after, between 2006 and 2008. Although the uptake was initially concentrated in the South, by 2021, thirty states had enacted SYG laws, and this number continues to increase as a raft of ongoing bills make their way through state legislatures. 7

Advocates claim that SYG laws enhance public safety by deterring predatory crime through an increased threat of retaliatory violence. 8 Critics, on the other hand, argue that the laws are unnecessary, and may threaten public safety by emboldening the use of deadly violence in public encounters in which violence and injury that could have safely been avoided. 9 There are also concerns that the laws exacerbate social inequalities in experiencing violent crime, since implicit and explicit biases of threat perception discriminate against and cause disproportionate harms among minority groups, such as Black people. 10 - 12 Anecdotally, critics’ concerns have been realized in an increasing number of shootings of young Black men (eg, Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, and Markeis McGlockton) where self-defense has been claimed. 12 These high-profile incidents underline the controversy surrounding SYG laws and have served to galvanize the Black Lives Matter movement. 13

Although previous studies have associated SYG laws with increases in homicide, 14 - 17 a 2021 systematic review highlighted key weaknesses of the current evidence. 18 First, the national impacts of SYG laws are undetermined because there is a lack of studies with robust study designs. 18 Second, very few studies examine the differential impacts of SYG laws on demographic groups, including racial or ethnic minority groups. Third, there is a marked discrepancy between US-wide analyses and single-state analyses. US-wide analyses report either no associations or small increases in homicide associated with enacting SYG laws 15 , 18 - 20 ; whereas single-state analyses, which almost exclusively evaluated Florida’s SYG law, identify substantial increases in homicide (24% to 27%). 14 , 21 , 22 The generalizability of the evidence beyond Florida remains unclear.

Since the laws continue to be adopted across the US, with 2 states passing SYG bills in early 2021 and 14 states currently having SYG bills under active consideration, 7 it is crucial to advance the evidence on SYG laws across the US and whether the laws show differential associations by state and demographic group. Our study aims to fill this gap. We obtained restricted access mortality data by special request to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that includes all medical records on causes of death from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2017. We used an interrupted time-series (ITS) design that exploited temporal and state variation in the enactment of the laws to strengthen the evidence on the outcomes associated with enacting SYG laws across the US.

Ethical approval was waived by Departmental Research Ethics Committee (DREC), University of Oxford, because the study uses fully anonymized administrative data previously collected by government bodies and official sources. The data cannot be traced back to an individual. We followed relevant recommendations set out in the Guidelines for Reporting Evaluations based on Observational Methodology ( GREOM ) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology ( STROBE ) reporting guideline. The study protocol and statistical analysis plan ( https://osf.io/s6xp4/ ) and analytical code ( https://osf.io/vmx2y/ ) have been made freely available at the Open Science Framework.

We used a multiple-baseline and -location ITS design to estimate the association of SYG laws with changes in homicide and firearm homicide rates across the US, both at the national and state levels. The staggered adoption of SYG laws across states offers a unique opportunity to reduce confounding in ITS (pre-post) evaluations by including states that did not enact SYG laws in the control group. 23 , 24 Observed and unobserved state- and time-varying confounding is therefore minimized, as the same confounding would have to present at all 23 different timings in each of the 23 states that enacted SYG laws while not occurring in any of the 18 states that did not have SYG laws enacted during the study period.

We defined an SYG law as a legislative statute that extended the legal right to use lethal force in self-defense to anywhere the individual has the right to be (ie, public places) (eMethods in the Supplement ). We systematically investigated self-defense laws in all 50 US states and classified each state by their variant of self-defense law (eMethods, eTable 1, and eFigure 1 in the Supplement ). States were included in the analysis if they were classified as an SYG state, enacting SYG laws between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2016. A reduced period of 2000 to 2016 was used to ensure that at least 12 months in the preintervention and postintervention period for modeling purposes. States were also included if they could serve as a comparison non-SYG state by not having an SYG law enacted by statute or upholding SYG law principles through case law, throughout the study period. We included 41 states in the analyses: 23 SYG states and 18 non-SYG states (eTable 2 in the Supplement ). We excluded the remaining 9 states from the analyses because 2 states (Utah and Iowa) lacked sufficient data during the study period to model trends and 7 states upheld principles of SYG law by case law even if not encoded in a statute. Including these states in the analysis would dilute the contrast between SYG and non-SYG states and bias estimates owing to intervention contamination effects. 25

We modeled time series data for state-level monthly counts of homicide (primary outcome) and firearm homicide (secondary outcome) between January 1999 to December 2017 (eMethods, eFigure 2, eFigure 3, and eTable 3 in the Supplement ). Outcome data were obtained by special request from the CDC’s Restricted Use Vital Statistics, which provided microdata on Multiple Cause of Death based on coroner determinations of cause of death for more than 99% of all deaths in the US. We further stratified outcomes by race (White vs Black and other races), age group (0-19, 20-34, and ≥35 years), and sex (male and female). Race was determined by medical death certificates in accordance with standards set forth by the Office of Management and Budget. Other races includes all races other than White or Black under the main categories of American Indian, Asian, and Pacific Islander. We stratified outcomes by race to determine whether the SYG laws had differential assoications by population subgroup, including by race. We identified and excluded any outliers from 1-event mass death events (eg, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack) from the analyses (eMethods and eTable 4 in the Supplement ).

We used negative control outcomes of suicide and firearm suicide to check for time-varying confounding. 26 We selected these outcomes because we hypothesized that they would be similarly affected by changes over time that might confound the association between SYG law enactment and changes in homicide and firearm homicide but would not be affected by the intervention itself. Such time-varying confounders included economic shifts (eg, an economic recession), changes in recording practices, and changes in firearm regulation and availability.

We ran Poisson regression analyses within a generalized additive model (GAM) framework to estimate the association of SYG laws with homicide and firearm homicide. Outcomes were modeled as a quasi-Poisson distribution owing to evidence of overdispersion. State population sizes by state and year, disaggregated by race, age group, and sex as relevant, were used as an offset variable to model rates per 100 000 persons directly. Our main exposure was a dummy variable indicating the presence of SYG law across groups (SYG vs non-SYG states) and over time (before and after SYG laws were enacted in SYG states). The dummy variable thus reflects a group-by-time interaction: 0 for non-SYG states and for the pre-enactment period in SYG laws and 1 for the postenactment period in SYG states. GAMs, as opposed to generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs), were used because there was significant evidence that long-term trends violated assumptions of linearity (eAppendix, eFigure 4, and eTable 5 in the Supplement ). GAMs can more flexibly smooth nonlinear trends while penalizing overfitting through generalized cross-validation. 27 To check the robustness of this penalization approach, we present estimates from nonpenalized GLMMs in the eAppendix in the Supplement .

Informed by a previous systematic review, 18 we hypothesized that the outcomes associated with SYG laws would follow a step-change pattern (ie, abrupt sustained change in level). The adoption of SYG laws was therefore estimated as a fixed effect, comparing differences in rates before and after SYG laws were enacted in the 23 SYG states, as well as with the 18 non-SYG states, while adjusting for seasonality and state-specific long-term trends. Both seasonality and long-term trends were modeled independently for each outcome. Seasonality was modeled using harmonics (Fourier series of pairs of sine and cosine functions) to smooth smaller repeating patterns in a year (ie, seasons). 24 , 28 State-specific trends were independently smoothed by specifying a factor-by-curve interaction to allow for differences in long-term trends between states. 29 The smoothness of trends was constrained to be equal across states to prioritize model parsimony and because there was no theoretical reason to assume that states should be smoothed to a differential degree. The equation for the base model is outlined in the eMethods in the Supplement . Results can be interpreted as the relative risk of monthly homicides or firearm homicides in the presence vs absence of SYG laws (ie, incidence rate ratio [IRR]). Model fit was checked through an analysis of the residuals, including data visualizations and inspection of the distribution of autocorrelations.

Stratified analyses were conducted to investigate whether associations of SYG laws with violent deaths differed by race, age group, and sex. Formal tests assessed whether the estimates varied across demographic groups. Specifically, approximate Wald tests (also known as Z -tests ) were used to compare stratified model estimates and test for differences within each demographic group (eg, White vs Black and other races). 30 These model comparisons were used to assess whether SYG laws were differentially associated with violent deaths by subgroup.

We also investigated state-by-state differences in estimates of the enactment of SYG laws by fitting separate quasi-Poisson regression models as interrupted times series analyses for each SYG state. Here, the main exposure is a dummy variable coding the absence (0) and presence (1) of SYG laws within SYG states alone, and thus implements a segmented regression analysis. 24 , 31 In these ITS models, we smoothed nonlinearity in long-term trends in 2 ways: fitted cubic terms for long-term trends and restricted the period to 3 years (ie, 36 months) before and after SYG laws were enacted, and we assumed fitted linear long-term trends (eAppendix in the Supplement ). State-level ITS models estimates were then pooled in fixed-effects meta-analyses. All analyses were conducted in R statistical software version 3.6.3 (R Project for Statistical Computing); the multiple location and baseline ITS GAMs were fitted using the R package mgcv while the simple ITS models were pooled using metafor . 32 , 33  P values were 2-sided, and statistical significance was set at P  < .05. Data were analyzed from November 2019 to December 2020.

The analysis included 41 states with 248 358 homicides (43.7% individuals aged 20-34 years; 77.9% men and 22.1% women), including 184 495 homicides in 23 SYG states and 63 863 homicides in 18 non-SYG states, and 170 659 firearm homicides, including 129 831 firearm homicides in 23 SYG states and 40 828 firearm homicides in 18 non-SYG states). The Table and eTable 6 in the Supplement present monthly rates and counts during the study period. Between 1999 and 2017, trends in monthly homicide and firearm homicide rates varied between states and did not follow simple linear trends. While there were gradual declines between 1999 and 2014, approximately half of all states experienced an uptick in homicide rates in recent years, irrespective of whether states had or had not enacted SYG laws ( Figure 1 ; eFigure 5 and eFigure 6 in the Supplement ). The negative control outcomes of suicide and firearm suicides rates mostly showed increasing trends from 1999 to 2017 (eFigure 7 and eFigure 8 in the Supplement ). Between 1999 and 2017, homicide and suicide rates were higher in states with SYG laws (mean [SD]: 0.55 [0.25] homicides per 100 000 persons and 1.24 [0.38] suicides per 100 000 persons) compared with non-SYG states (mean [SD]: 0.31 [0.22] homicides per 100 000 persons and 1.03 [0.45] suicides per 100 000 persons) ( Table ). Within SYG states and compared with the period before SYG laws were enacted, after SYG laws were enacted there were higher rates of homicide (mean [SD], 0.54 [0.26] vs 0.55 [0.25] homicides per 100 000 population) and suicide (mean [SD], 1.13 [0.35] vs 1.32 [0.38] suicides per 100 000 population).

The enactment of SYG laws was associated with a mean national increase of 7.8% in monthly homicide rates (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P  < .001) and 8.0% in monthly firearm homicide rates (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13; P  = .002) ( Table and Figure 1 ; eFigure 6 in the Supplement ). SYG laws were not associated with changes in the 2 negative control outcomes: suicide (IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.01; P  = .58) or firearm suicide rates (IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02; P  = .94) (eFigure 7 and eFigure 8 in the Supplement ). Separate ITS analyses for SYG states only, pooled via meta-analyses, estimated higher increases of 9.9% for homicide (IRR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13; P  < .001) and 10.8% for firearm homicide (IRR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.15; P  < .001). No changes were observed for the negative control suicide outcomes.

The penalization approach was tested by fitting a series of nonpenalized GLMMs using polynomials to model nonlinear trends at the national and state level (eAppendix in the Supplement ). Results from the GLMMs replicated our main findings, with associated increases of 9.5% for homicide (IRR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12; P  < .001) and 9.1% for firearm homicide (IRR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.12; P  < .001) (eTable 7 in the Supplement ). Nonlinear models were further supplemented by restricting the study period to a smaller temporal window (ie, 36 months before and after the enactment of SYG laws) and fitting state-specific ITS models with linear trends (eAppendix in the Supplement ). Consistently, these linear models identified an 8.9% increase for homicide (IRR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.13; P  < .001) and a 9.2% increase for firearm homicide (IRR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.14; P  < .001) following the enactment of SYG laws (eFigure 9 and eFigure 10 in the Supplement ). There continued to be no association between SYG laws and suicide (IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02; P  = .46) or firearm suicide (IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02; P  = .47).

No statistically significant differences by race, age group, or sex of individuals who died by homicide were identified ( Table ; eTable 8 in the Supplement ). However, stratified models showed more pronounced increases in some demographic groups ( Figure 2 ). The largest increases were seen for White individuals (IRR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.15; P  < .001) and for males (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P  < .001). There was inconsistent evidence that the enactment of SYG laws was associated with increases for persons aged 0 to 19 years or females. The main models (GAMs) identified no significant associations, whereas supplementary models (GLMMs) estimated significant associations (eTable 7 in the Supplement ). This is likely because the subgroups of individuals aged 0 to 19 years and females had the smallest number of individuals who died by homicide, thus model estimation suffered from low counts and increased uncertainty (eTable 6 in the Supplement ).

Associations of SYG laws with violent deaths differed by state ( Figure 3 ). Large increases for homicide and firearm homicide rates were associated with the enactment of SYG laws in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Missouri. These increases ranged from 16.2% to 33.5%, with firearm homicides typically showing larger increases than total homicides. SYG laws were not significantly associated with changes in homicides or firearm homicides rates in a handful of states, including Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia. We explored between-state heterogeneity by visualizing state-specific associations across the US, which showed that larger associations clustered in Southern states ( Figure 3 ; eFigure 11 in the Supplement ).

This cohort study found that the enactment of SYG laws was associated with an abrupt and sustained 8% to 11% national increase in monthly homicide and firearm homicide rates, contributing an extra 58 to 72 homicides each month. This monthly increase alone exceeds total rates of homicides in most Northern and Western European countries today. 34 Estimates are consistent with previous studies 15 , 17 ; but this study advances the evidence by examining SYG laws over an extended timeframe and using enhanced mortality data to investigate differential associations by state and demographic group.

Although the enactment of SYG laws was not associated with significant change in violent deaths in all states, there was no evidence that SYG laws were associated with decreases in homicide or firearm homicide. Our analyses show that increases in homicide associated with SYG laws were not restricted to Florida. 14 , 21 , 22 Comparable changes were observed in at least 8 other states at different times across the US, although the largest increases clustered in the South and in states that were early adopters of SYG laws (2005-2007). The association between SYG laws and increases in violent deaths cannot be attributed to distortion by a single state outlier (eg, Florida), 18 but may be attributed to time-varying confounders specific to the South and/or the early enactment of SYG laws. The between-state heterogeneity suggests that SYG laws alone may not be sufficient in explaining increases in homicide. Understanding the factors shaping these differential associations between states, such as regions endorsing the use of self-protective violence, 35 existing state firearm legislation, and firearm availability, is key to understanding how and why legally expanding the right to use deadly violence in public is associated with increases in homicides in some states but not others.

Despite concerns that SYG laws exacerbate social inequalities in experiencing violent crime, 13 we did not find differential associations by demographic group. SYG laws were associated with mean increases in homicide and firearm homicide rates irrespective of race, age group, or sex of individuals who died by homicide . 18 At least in terms of homicide, these findings do not lend support for the claim that SYG laws widen racial disparities. However, our analyses are based on causes of death and thus can only examine homicide. We do not examine nonfatal injury, patterns of racial concordance between the deceased and the defendant, or patterns in legal outcomes (eg, conviction or acquittal rates) following enactment of SYG laws. Owing to the ongoing context of racism in the US 10 - 12 and previous studies showing multiple pathways through which SYG laws may exacerbate social injustice (eg, via racialized threat perceptions), 36 , 37 future research should aim to assess the disproportional impacts and implications of SYG laws for disadvantaged groups, such as Black individuals.

This study has some limitations. Our study period was limited to ending in December 2017 because this was the most recent available data at the time of conducting the research. Five additional states have since enacted SYG laws, which we were unable to evaluate as they fell outside our study period. Iowa was also excluded from the analyses because its SYG law was enacted in July 2017, so it had insufficient time points to model the postintervention period. Most SYG states included in this study were early adopters of SYG law, with 74% adopting the law between October 2005 and September 2007. This limited variation in the enactment timing reduces the generalizability of our findings to more recent adoptions of SYG laws. Low homicide counts among demographic groups, especially for persons aged 0 to 19 years and females, restricted modeling power and certainty for estimating associations for these subgroups. Nevertheless, these findings echoed the limited number of analyses that have previously investigated distributional outcomes associated with SYG laws. 18 Although the design and advanced statistical modeling used here minimize confounding, it is still possible that the unobserved heterogeneity across states and changes that occurred around the same time of each SYG enactment mean our estimates reflect the outcomes associated with SYG laws plus a spurious effect from confounding. The most likely source of confounding is that the as-if-random assumption of the timings of SYG law enactment across states was violated owing to another factor (eg, high-profile self-defense cases, changes in societal attitudes, coordinated campaigns by lobbyists), 38 causing both the enactment of SYG law and increases in violent deaths in the state. 39 However, in the absence of a feasible randomized clinical trial, we present strong alternative evidence by controlling for observed and unobserved confounding by design and including a series of robustness checks.

This cohort study found that the staggered adoption of SYG laws in US states was associated with increases in homicide and firearm homicide rates across the US. These increases reach 10% and higher in several Southern states, while no states had significant reductions in violent deaths, as advocates often argue when justifying these laws. The accumulation of evidence established in this and other studies point to harmful outcomes associated with SYG laws. Despite this, SYG laws have now been enacted in most states, and the uptake of new SYG bills continues to be popular, unnecessarily risking lives.

Accepted for Publication: December 11, 2021.

Published: February 21, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0077

Correction: This article was corrected on April 6, 2022, to delete an extraneous box in Figure 3 .

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License . © 2022 Degli Esposti M et al. JAMA Network Open .

Corresponding Author: Michelle Degli Esposti, PhD, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Barnett House, 32 Wellington Sq, Oxford OX1 2ER, United Kingdom ( [email protected] ).

Author Contributions: Drs Degli Esposti and Humphreys had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Degli Esposti, Gasparrini, Humphreys.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Degli Esposti, Humphreys.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Degli Esposti, Gasparrini, Humphreys.

Obtained funding: Gasparrini, Humphreys.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Degli Esposti, Gasparrini, Humphreys.

Supervision: Wiebe, Humphreys.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This work was funded by grant No. 18-38016 from the Joyce Foundation.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The Joyce Foundation had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Joyce Foundation.

Additional Contributions: Jason Gravel, PhD (Temple University), provided technical assistance in data processing, and David Kirk, PhD (University of Oxford), assisted with data troubleshooting and providing insightful comments on the manuscript. Neither Drs Gravel nor Kirk received compensation for their contributions.

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Public Health
• v.111(4); Apr 2021

Effects of Laws Expanding Civilian Rights to Use Deadly Force in Self-Defense on Violence and Crime: A Systematic Review

All authors contributed to the conceptualization and design of this study. D. K. Humphreys originated the study idea and secured funding for the project. A. R. Yakubovich and D. K. Humphreys oversaw all steps of the study process. A. R. Yakubovich and B. C. L. Lange conducted all searches. A. R. Yakubovich, M. Degli Esposti, B. C. L. Lange, G. J. Melendez-Torres, A. Parmar, and D. K. Humphreys screened studies. A. R. Yakubovich, M. Degli Esposti, and B. C. L. Lange extracted data from included studies. A. R. Yakubovich and M. Degli Esposti conducted the risk of bias assessment. A. R. Yakubovich conducted the study syntheses, created all tables and figures, and drafted the appendices. A. R. Yakubovich led and D. K. Humphreys contributed to the writing of the first draft of the article. All authors revised the article critically for important intellectual content and approved the final version.

Background. Since 2005, most US states have expanded civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense outside the home. In most cases, legislation has included removing the duty to retreat anywhere one may legally be, commonly known as stand-your-ground laws. The extent to which these laws affect public health and safety is widely debated in public and policy discourse.

Objectives. To synthesize the available evidence on the impacts and social inequities associated with changing civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense on violence, injury, crime, and firearm-related outcomes.

Search Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts, Education Resources Information Center, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar, National Bureau of Economic Research working papers, and SocArXiv; harvested references of included studies; and consulted with experts to identify studies until April 2020.

Selection Criteria. Eligible studies quantitatively estimated the association between laws that expanded or restricted the right to use deadly force in self-defense and population or subgroup outcomes among civilians with a comparator.

Data Collection and Analysis. Two reviewers extracted study data using a common form. We assessed study quality using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tools adapted for (controlled) before–after studies. To account for data dependencies, we conducted graphical syntheses (forest plots and harvest plots) to summarize the evidence on impacts and inequities associated with changing self-defense laws.

Main Results. We identified 25 studies that estimated population-level impacts of laws expanding civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense, all of which focused on stand-your-ground or other expansions to self-defense laws in the United States. Studies were scored as having serious or critical risk of bias attributable to confounding. Risk of bias was low across most other domains (i.e., selection, missing data, outcome, and reporting biases). Stand-your-ground laws were associated with no change to small increases in violent crime (total and firearm homicide, aggravated assault, robbery) on average across states. Florida-based studies showed robust increases (24% to 45%) in firearm and total homicide while self-defense claims under stand-your-ground law were more often denied when victims were White, especially when claimants were racial minorities.

Author’s Conclusions. The existing evidence contradicts claims that expanding self-defense laws deters violent crime across the United States. In at least some contexts, including Florida, stand-your-ground laws are associated with increases in violence, and there are racial inequities in the application of these laws.

Public Health Implications. In some US states, most notably Florida, stand-your-ground laws may have harmed public health and safety and exacerbated social inequities. Our findings highlight the need for scientific evidence on both population and equity impacts of self-defense laws to guide legislative action that promotes public health and safety for all.

Trial Registration. Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/uz68e ).

PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Since 2005, most of the United States have adopted stand-your-ground laws. These laws expand people’s right to use deadly force in self-defense anywhere they may legally be without first attempting to retreat. To understand how such laws may affect public health and safety, we searched for all evidence on the impacts of laws that expand or restrict the right to use deadly force in self-defense. We identified 25 studies that examined the impacts of stand-your-ground laws and other expansions to self-defense laws on violence, crime, and firearm use and demand in the United States. An additional 7 studies looked at the outcomes of self-defense cases involving stand-your-ground claims in Florida. Evidence from our review suggests that expanding people’s right to use deadly force has not reduced crime on average across the United States. In at least some US states, most notably Florida, stand-your-ground laws have been associated with increases in homicides and there has been racial bias in the application of legal protections. More research is needed on how the impacts of these laws on violence, injury, and criminal justice differ by race and gender across states. Our results demonstrate the importance of using scientific evidence on how laws may have an impact on the overall population and social justice in law and policymaking.

The extent to which civilians can justifiably kill or injure others has been the topic of religious, philosophical, and legal discussion for several centuries. 1 Traditional common law allows citizens to use deadly force in self-defense only when safe retreat is impossible—except when in one’s home, where there is no duty to retreat (otherwise known as the castle doctrine). 2 Recent amendments to self-defense laws in the United States have reinvigorated this debate. 3 Beginning with Florida in 2005, 26 US states adopted stand-your-ground (SYG) statutes over the past 15 years, which remove civilian duty to retreat anywhere one may legally be (and, in some cases, provide immunity from civil liability and the presumption of reasonable fear). 4 In addition to these states and Utah, which passed a similar law in 1994, 8 states have SYG by case law, and 7 states have expanded castle doctrine laws (sometimes referred to as “limited” SYG laws) that remove the duty to retreat in certain places outside the home (e.g., the workplace; see Appendix Table A [available as a supplement to this article at https://ajph.org ] for a summary). 2,5 Advocates maintain that these laws strengthen legal protections for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and, in some cases, may deter predatory crime. 6 Critics stress that expanding laws to use deadly force threatens public health and safety by encouraging the use of violence and vigilante justice, likely to exacerbate social inequities in violence and criminal justice outcomes. 7

Changes to self-defense laws create an opportunity to assess how the relaxation (or strengthening) of legal restrictions on the use of deadly force affects violence, injury, crime, and related social inequities. The prevalence of gun ownership and gun violence in the United States amplifies the ability to use deadly force and appears to be a predictor of states adopting SYG laws. 3 However, understanding the consequences of relaxing legal restrictions on civilian use of deadly violence is important to public health and safety beyond the US context: governments worldwide (e.g., Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom) have received petitions for the introduction of US-style relaxations to self-defense laws. We therefore aimed to systematically review all quantitative research available internationally on the impacts of laws altering civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense on violence, injury, firearm, and criminal justice outcomes and to examine whether there are differences in impacts among sociodemographic groups (e.g., by race or gender).

We searched for published and unpublished studies in 10 databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts, Education Resources Information Center, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (protocol registered on Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/uz68e ). In consultation with an information specialist (University of Oxford Bodleian Libraries), we searched for stand your ground, SYG, shoot first, line in the sand, self-defence, self-defense, deadly force, legal immunity, castle law, castle doctrine, lethal force, or reasonable force (Appendix Box A). We conducted directed searches of Google Scholar, National Bureau of Economic Research working papers, and SocArXiv; harvested references from relevant studies and reviews; set up search alerts; and consulted experts in the field via author networks for any additional studies. Study searching and inclusion proceeded until April 2020.

Five reviewers (A. Y., B. L., G. M. T, A. P., and D. H.) screened titles and abstracts, including all quantitative studies about self-defense laws except studies on state or military violence. All reviewers first independently screened 200 randomly selected records to establish consistency; the remaining records were then randomly divided among the reviewers. A second reviewer (A. Y. or B. L.) double-screened a random 10% of the excluded studies to ensure sensitivity. Three reviewers (A. Y., B. L., and D. H.) screened all potentially relevant full texts; M. D. E. double-screened all decisions. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved with A. Y. and D. H. We included studies that quantitatively estimated the association between laws that expanded or restricted the right to use deadly force in self-defense and population or subgroup outcomes. Studies that had any comparator (including before implementation) and investigated any outcome among civilians were included. There were no language, location, or time restrictions.

Two reviewers (A. Y. and M. D. E.) extracted data on publication information, design, methods, and effect estimates and appraised study quality. When studies provided more than 1 intervention effect estimate for any given outcome, we followed a decision-making algorithm based on previous reviews and guidelines 8–10 :

• Extract the most adjusted estimate.
• Extract the model estimate most appropriate for count or rate outcomes as relevant (e.g., Poisson or negative binomial models).
• Extract the estimate for an immediate, permanent intervention effect (first order) in autoregressive integrated moving average models for comparability with other studies.
• If multiple estimates equally meet 1 to 3, extract the most- and least-liberal estimates (based on effect size and precision) to determine the range of estimates.

We appraised included studies using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools for before–after and controlled before–after studies. 11 ROBINS-I evaluates bias by confounding, selection of study units, classification of interventions, deviations from intended interventions, missing data, outcome measurement, and results reporting. We evaluated risk of bias in each study based on the highest-risk outcome to be conservative (e.g., justifiable homicides—which are affected by SYG laws, making this analysis more susceptible to bias—over total homicides). Ratings were based on extracted analyses: we did not evaluate analyses presented in figure format without extractable data.

Meta-analysis was not possible as included studies used the same data sources (violating assumptions of data independence). We used graphical synthesis methods and followed reporting guidelines for systematic syntheses without meta-analysis. 12 Most results were available in, or could be transformed to, percent change in outcome rates, which we used as our standardized metric. We graphed these percent changes for each outcome by geographic region wherever there were 2 available estimates by using forest plots. We exponentiated log estimates from log-linked models (producing risk or rate ratios) and estimates from linear models with log-transformed outcomes (producing geometric mean ratios)—both relative effect estimates that could be synthesized in a single plot.

We summarized the results from subgroup analyses using tables and harvest plots. 13 We focused on subgroup characteristics in PROGRESS-plus—a Cochrane framework for the analysis of health inequities. 14 PROGRESS characteristics are place of residence; race/ethnicity, culture, and language; occupation; gender or sex; religion; education; socioeconomic status; and social capital. “Plus” refers to personal characteristics associated with discrimination (e.g., age), relationship features, and time-dependent relationships. Harvest plots highlight where the evidence suggests a positive, negative, or null gradient for inequities in outcomes and where evidence gaps exist. Null associations were defined as small or variable estimates centered around the point of no effect; positive or negative associations were large or consistent estimates in the positive or negative direction, respectively.

After duplicates were removed, we screened 20 987 titles and abstracts, excluding 20 706 records as irrelevant (Appendix Figure A). After title and abstract screening, we identified 19 additional studies through reference harvesting, search alerts, and expert consultation and therefore screened 210 full texts. We included 25 studies that had main effect estimates of expanding civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense. 15–38 An additional 7 studies only investigated outcome distributions (usually judicial rulings) of Florida self-defense cases by subgroup characteristics—we included these to supplement our overview of the equity impacts of self-defense laws. 39–45

Study Characteristics

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the 25 main effect studies; Appendix Table B summarizes each study’s characteristics. All studies were US-based: most investigated SYG laws (84%); 3 studies investigated SYG laws and expanded castle doctrine laws applying to property outside the home. The remaining study investigated mainly castle doctrine laws up to 2005, before most SYG statutes. 6 All but 1 study 25 controlled for covariates in analyses: 8 only accounted for seasonal, secular, or regional or state trends; 16 also accounted for time-varying covariates (e.g., other laws; see Appendix Table C, for summary of covariates). Eighteen studies compared treated versus untreated units across the United States; 9 conducted a before–after analysis of a single geographic unit (e.g., a state). Only 6 of the main effect studies conducted subgroup comparisons (most commonly by race). Some studies only investigated subgroup samples: adolescents, 19 urban counties, 18 states that passed laws within a restricted time frame (2005–2007), 22 or eastern states. 36 These were included as main effect studies because they did not compare subgroups on the sampling characteristic, but noted as potential sources of heterogeneity and evaluated for selection bias as relevant.

TABLE 1—

Summary of Characteristics of the 25 Included Studies on the Effects of Laws Expanding Civilian Rights to Use Deadly Force in Self-Defense: 2010–2019

Note. ARIMA = autoregressive integrated moving average model; SYG = stand your ground. The sample size was 25 studies.

Appendix Table D summarizes classifications of states as “treated” versus “untreated” in US-wide studies of laws expanding the right to use deadly force outside the home. Of 32 states that were classified as “treated,” only 9 were consistently analyzed as treated across all studies: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. All of these states implemented statutory SYG laws between 2006 and 2011. Differences in state classifications were often attributable to variations in study time frames (including whether different states had adopted SYG laws within the study’s time frame) and whether authors analyzed only SYG laws or additionally expanded castle doctrine laws. Only 2 studies defined states that adopted SYG in practice (by case law) as treated: Illinois 21 and Oregon. 32 See Appendix Box B, for further discussion.

All studies were at serious or critical risk of bias attributable to confounding, by virtue of being nonrandomized and at risk for influence from simultaneously occurring events (Appendix Table E). Confounding ratings were affected by the likely extent of uncontrolled systematic differences between the intervention and comparator groups, adjusting for postintervention variables that could have been affected by the intervention (e.g., violent crime) and evidence of differences or no information on preintervention trends among intervention and control units. Risk of bias was rated as mostly low across most other domains (i.e., selection, missing data, outcome, and reporting biases). Appendix Table E presents the ratings for each study and Appendix Box C provides further discussion.

Main Effects

Forty outcomes—spanning deaths, injury, crime, unemployment, criminal justice, and firearm demand—were analyzed across the 25 main effect studies (Appendix Table F). The most common outcomes were firearm (n = 9 studies) and total homicides (n = 9). Sixteen outcomes were analyzed as negative controls (i.e., an outcome not hypothesized to change because of the intervention) in at least 1 study.

All study results are presented in the Appendix Tables G and H. We focus here on outcome categories with combinable estimates (i.e., transformable to the standardized metric) from at least 2 studies. Figure 1 shows the percent change in outcome before and after the intervention for US-wide and Florida-specific studies. Panel A shows that, overall, expanding rights and protections for the use of deadly force in self-defense outside the home had an average null to small positive association with firearm homicide, total homicide, robberies, and aggravated assaults across the United States. A third noncombinable study on aggravated assaults found a negative but variable association with SYG 26 ; as the authors noted, these results were not robust to different analyses and were unreliable given their placebo test (traffic fatalities) was also negative. Three studies analyzed nonfirearm homicide, 2 of which were combinable. Overall, associations were null; 1 study found a small, negative average association with nonfirearm homicides 31 (consistently conceptualized as a negative control 18,31,35 ). Two combinable studies showed positive but variable associations between expanding self-defense laws and justifiable homicide rates across the United States, 17,37 in line with noncombinable US- 25 and Florida-based 24 evidence. A fifth study showed that homicides were more likely to be ruled justifiable in SYG versus non-SYG states. 30

Graphical Synthesis Showing Percent Change in Violent Outcomes of Laws Expanding the Right to Use Deadly Force in Self-Defense Outside the Home in (a) United States–Wide Studies and (b) Florida-Specific Studies: 2013–2020

Note. CI = confidence interval; IRR = incidence rate ratio. We multiplied exponentiated coefficients by 100 and subtracted 1 to determine percent change. The type of estimate from which the percent change in outcome was derived is provided in parentheses. Black diamonds indicate associations estimated as intervention effects; white squares indicate associations estimated as a negative control. We excluded Lott 6 from our synthesis as this study analyzed a heterogeneous exposure compared with all other studies (mainly the implementation of castle doctrine laws up until 2005, before most stand-your-ground statutes were implemented). Results are presented in the Appendix Tables G and H (available as a supplement to this article at http://www.ajph.org ). Updates to these analyses with data until 2012 were not extractable 47 ; however, a later editorial suggests results were close to the null (–1.5%). 48

a Including studies that analyzed gun deaths excluding suicide.

b The most conservative estimates are included for Gius. 21 The most liberal estimates are provided in the Appendix Table G—results were consistent, with liberal estimates suggesting null to small positive effects.

c There are 3 iterations of these analyses (2 working papers 49,50 and 1 peer-reviewed publication 37 ). We included the latter in this review as the most up-to-date analysis.

d Study used inverse hyperbolic sine rather than log transformation. 32

Three US-wide studies considered legal variations in expansions of state self-defense laws governing civilian use of lethal force. 17,34,37 All ran analyses accounting for different variants in these laws (e.g., removal of civil liability) and found consistent estimates of the impacts of expanding no duty to retreat outside the home. One study also compared results for states that previously required the duty to retreat and those that did not: the former showed greater increases in homicide rates than the latter after the implementation of expanded castle doctrine laws. 17

Panel B ( Figure 1 ) demonstrates robust positive associations between SYG in Florida and state firearm (+32% to +45%) and total homicide rates (+24% to +27%). In contrast, firearm suicide (conceptualized as a negative control) showed null or highly variable associations with SYG in 2 Florida-based studies. 19,23 The 2 studies with other state-specific estimates of impacts on homicide rates besides Florida were not conclusive, 15,22 apart from finding strong evidence of increased homicides in Michigan following implementation. 22

Two studies investigated intermediary variables between laws expanding the right to use deadly force outside the home and violent outcomes—in other words, variables that may be on the causal pathway. These intermediary variables included firearm acquisition or demand and firearm ownership, each of which was measured with a proxy variable. Both studies used federal background checks to approximate firearm acquisition or demand and found that these increased on average across states after implementation. 28,34 One of the studies used the proportion of suicides attributable to firearms to approximate firearm ownership and found that this decreased following implementation. 34

Equity Effects

Subgroup comparisons from main effect studies..

Table 2 shows the subgroup comparisons from the main effect studies. Apart from 1 exception noted subsequently, no main effect study ran interaction analyses, which limits inferences. The results shown in Table 2 are, therefore, estimates of the impacts of expanding the right to use deadly force among each subgroup. SYG was associated with greater firearm and total homicide rate increases across more- versus less-urbanized counties in Florida. 33 Barring a few exceptions, SYG associations with homicide- and firearm-related outcomes tended to be positive among all race groups when intersected by gender or jurisdiction. McClellan and Tekin conducted an interaction analysis (the only study to do so for any outcome) for firearm homicides across the United States, finding consistent associations for all race and gender groups, with postimplementation increases greatest among White males (i.e., homicides in which White males were the victims). 37 For justifiable homicides, McClellan and Tekin also found stronger associations among White males in stratified analyses, 37 whereas Spanbauer, using longer and more frequent data, found stronger associations for cases of Blacks killing Blacks in urban areas. 32 Florida’s SYG was associated with increases in firearm homicides for both Black and White people; among adolescents (ages 15–19 years), SYG was associated with greater increases for Black versus White people 19 whereas among adults (age ≥ 20 years), the opposite pattern was observed. 23

TABLE 2—

Results From the 6 Main Effect Studies on the Effects of Laws Expanding Civilian Rights to Use Deadly Force in Self-Defense With PROGRESS-Plus Subgroup Analyses: 2010–2019

Note. CI = confidence interval; IRR = incidence rate ratio; PROGRESS-Plus = place of residence; race/ethnicity, culture, and language; occupation; gender or sex; religion; education; socioeconomic status; social capital; personal characteristics associated with discrimination (e.g., age); relationship features; and time-dependent relationships. In addition to the results shown here, subgroup differences were also analyzed for 3 outcomes hypothesized as negative controls (firearm suicide, total suicide, and property crime). The full table of results is included in the Appendix Table I (available as a supplement to this article at http://www.ajph.org ). All coefficients are incidence rate ratios unless otherwise noted. We only present analyses for which comparisons were made between at least 2 subgroups (i.e., excluding analyses of 1 subgroup only, such as White people). We provide the highest-order interaction results from Spanbauer 32 and McClellan and Tekin 37 as these provided the greatest detail on subgroup differences. Subgroup differences in outcomes that were only ever investigated as negative controls in the included studies are not summarized here.

Supplementary studies of the outcomes of stand-your-ground cases in Florida.

As discussed previously, 7 supplementary studies only analyzed the characteristics or outcomes of cases (fatal or nonfatal) involving a SYG defense (herein referred to as SYG cases) in Florida—these analyses provide further insight into potential inequities in the application of SYG laws. Appendix Tables J and K detail study characteristics and results, respectively. Figure 2 summarizes the associations between PROGRESS-plus characteristics and conviction rulings: studies analyzed the associations between the odds of a case ending in conviction and characteristics of the person claiming self-defense (i.e., the claimant) or the person injured or killed (i.e., the victim). Victim and claimant race as well as claimant gender were most commonly analyzed (n = 5 studies). SYG cases that involved racial minority victims ended in conviction less often than those with White victims, regardless of sample size and whether studies adjusted for other case characteristics (e.g., claimant race). In addition, Roman 30 found that the proportion of homicides ruled justifiable was higher for all possible race pairs of victims and claimants in SYG versus non-SYG states in unadjusted comparisons. The study also showed similar patterns in White-on-Black homicides being ruled justifiable more often and Black-on-White homicides being ruled justifiable less often than White-on-White homicides in adjusted analyses. Roman did not run interaction analyses to determine if these differences were exacerbated by SYG laws.

Harvest Plots of the Association Between PROGRESS-Plus Characteristics and the Odds of Conviction in Stand-Your-Ground Cases in Florida After Implementation (n = 5 Studies): 2014–2018

Note. PROGRESS-Plus = place of residence; race/ethnicity, culture, and language; occupation; gender or sex; religion; education; socioeconomic status; social capital; personal characteristics associated with discrimination (e.g., age); relationship features; and time-dependent relationships. Each bar represents a study (number = reference number); the position of the bar on the plot indicates whether the characteristic had a negative, null, or positive association with odds of conviction. Null associations were defined as small or variable estimates centered around the point of no effect; positive (increased odds of conviction) or negative (decreased odds of conviction) associations were large or consistent estimates in the positive or negative direction, respectively. Numerical results are provided in the Appendix Table K (available as a supplement to this article at http://www.ajph.org ).

a Lott also studied victim and claimant race/ethnicity and found that conviction was negatively associated with cases involving Hispanic victims and positively associated, but with extreme variability (SE > 20 000 000 000), with cases involving White or Hispanic claimants. 45 We have not plotted these findings because Lott analyzed dummy variables for all available race/ethnicity categories (White, Black, Hispanic) in the same model (a likely contributor to the model’s instability); therefore, the referent for these associations is unclear and the model is unreliable. In addition, McCormick conducted 3 iterations of analyses 41,51,52 ; we included only the version with association estimates as per our eligibility criteria. 41

b Discordance refers to discordance between race or gender of victim and claimant (e.g., White victim and racial minority claimant = racially discordant).

*Large point estimate but highly variable association.

Most other characteristics showed null associations with conviction outcomes across studies. Murphy also conducted adjusted interaction analyses between victim and claimant race and gender. 42 Cases in which the victim was White (vs a racial minority) had lower odds of ending in conviction when the claimant was White or the victim was male (vs female). In a separate interaction model, Murphy further found that cases involving domestic (vs nondomestic) violence had lower odds of resulting in conviction when the claimant was male (vs female). The only study to consider nonconviction outcomes, Isijola found that racial (Black vs non-Black) and age (< 25 vs ≥ 25) concordance between victim and claimant in Florida SYG cases were unrelated to the claimant initiating aggression, proportionality of force, or ability to avoid conflict. 40 Lack of clarity on initial aggressor and ability to avoid conflict were more common in cases where both victim and claimant were Black. The study also analyzed cases involving young Black males, but cell counts were too low (< 5) to be reliable.

All available evidence evaluating the quantitative impacts of laws altering civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense is from the United States, focused primarily on SYG laws. The weight of this evidence suggests that expanding civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense outside the home is associated with, at most, modest increases, on average, in the rates of violent crime (including total and firearm homicide, aggravated assault, and robbery) across the United States. The existing evidence is inconsistent with hypotheses that these laws have an average deterrent effect or lead to large increases (> 25%) in violent crime on average. However, findings across states were heterogeneous, and Florida-specific evidence demonstrated robust increases (24%–45%) in firearm and total homicide rates following the enactment of its SYG law 19,23,33 —highlighting the need for further studies that account for implementation differences across states.

Four studies accounted for variations in changes to state self-defense laws, 17,22,34,37 3 of which computed an average (across states) intervention effect. 17,34,37 These 3 studies adjusted for different legal provisions (e.g., removing civil liability) and found that their primary results persisted. There was preliminary evidence that states that previously had a duty to retreat experienced larger increases in homicide rates following expansions to civilian rights to use deadly force outside the home. 17,22 This could, in theory, serve to explain the larger effects observed for Florida, along with its expansive media coverage, partly attributable to Florida being the first state to adopt the “model” SYG law. 3 Nonetheless, the largest estimate of the average intervention effect on homicides (14%) came from a study that excluded Florida, suggesting that the inclusion or exclusion of Florida did not drive the variation observed across study estimates. 32

Further studies are needed on between- (and within-) state variation and potential explanations (e.g., varying laws, implementation, media coverage, legislative, and societal contexts) as well as the impacts of statistical decisions (e.g., model specifications, time periods covered, and temporal resolution). The common approach to handling interstate variation was to model 2-way fixed effects or conduct state-specific analyses. Alternative methods to explore state-specific deviations from the average effect would be to include a meta-analysis of state-specific effects 20 or the Bacon decomposition for 2-way fixed effects in the presence of varying treatment timing. 53 Authors also differed in their definitions of SYG or expanded castle doctrine laws and tended to focus only on statutory rather than case law. This raises the potential for different impact models (including mechanisms and timing of effects), which future research should investigate by including all states with SYG in practice—perhaps particularly for criminal justice outcomes, discussed later in this section.

Only one quarter of studies considered subgroup differences. 19,23,27,32,33,37 This is notable given concerns that expanding civilian rights to use deadly force outside the home will exacerbate social inequities in violent victimization—particularly for Black people, as the expansion of these rights adds to the history and ongoing context of racism (e.g., via racialized perceptions of threat, stereotypes of criminality, and the increased likelihood of excessive force). 54,55 Comparisons by race showed mixed findings, which are difficult to draw conclusions from without interaction analyses. In Florida, firearm homicide rates increased more dramatically among Black adolescents compared with White adolescents after the implementation of SYG, 19 whereas the reverse pattern was observed among adults. 23 Across states, the associations between expanding self-defense laws and firearm and justifiable homicide rates tended to be small and positive across victim race. 32,37

Studies examining Florida self-defense cases involving SYG claims help contextualize these findings. Cases ended in conviction (i.e., were not ruled justifiable) more often when the victim was White 39,41–44 —especially when the claimant was a racial minority. 42 These racial inequities were not explained by case characteristics (e.g., victim being armed) 41–44 or dimensions of SYG (e.g., proportionality of force). 40 This initial evidence suggests that there are not dramatic differences in increases in homicide rates among Black versus White people following SYG and expanded castle doctrine laws. However, at least in Florida, there appears to be racial bias in the criminal justice process in rulings on SYG cases. 39,42 This means that even if SYG has increased legal protections for those claiming self-defense, there remains racial bias in the application of these protections that was not explained away by other case characteristics. To draw implications beyond Florida, racial inequities in the outcomes of self-defense claims before and after the implementation of SYG relative to non-SYG states must be analyzed accounting for case characteristics. It is possible that self-defense cases have similar outcome distributions by race in SYG versus non-SYG states but that levels are higher in SYG states (given more self-defense claims). 30 Barriers to such an analysis include the inconsistent reporting of justifiable homicide across states, discussed further in this section.

There has been even less consideration of gender in eligible evaluations, and only 2 included studies examined intersections of race and gender. Scholars have long noted the gendered notions of self-defense underlying castle doctrine laws (i.e., the “true man” empowered to use lethal force in self-defense where he has the legal right to be) 56 —in contrast, for instance, with the battered women syndrome defense, which requires expert testimony to evidence abused women’s psychological condition of learned helplessness. 57 Extending the tradition of castle doctrine, most SYG statutes do not mention domestic violence, and those that do typically only remove the duty to retreat if there is an active protection order. 51 The initial findings of this review and available descriptive evidence 58 demonstrate the importance of further research that examines the outcomes of SYG cases by gender and race across states, with attention to different forms of domestic violence and variations in case characteristics and state laws.

As expected with nonrandomized studies, all studies were rated as having critical or serious risk of bias attributable to confounding. 11 However, reflecting their (overall) high methodological quality for nonrandomized studies, most studies were low-to-moderate risk on most domains of bias. A common problem across studies was not adjusting for time-varying covariates or adjusting for postimplementation variables likely on the causal pathway (e.g., violent crime). Future evaluations of self-defense laws should map hypothesized pathways to impacts (e.g., using directed acyclic graphs) to a priori determine covariates and impact models. 59 Few studies evaluated mechanisms through which these laws may work. Gun ownership and demand have been hypothesized to increase after expanding rights to use deadly force in self-defense outside the home, yet only 2 studies examined this, with mixed findings depending on the outcome. 28,34 Proponents argue that SYG laws empower civilians who need to defend themselves; yet measuring legitimate self-defense is notoriously difficult. 4 The existing studies analyzed justifiable homicides as a proxy. This limits conclusions because self-defense laws change the definition of justifiable homicides, and these data are inconsistently reported across states—in addition to the social disparities in judicial rulings. Future research should triangulate analyses with other available data (e.g., the National Crime Victimization Survey).

Strengths and Limitations

We only synthesized quantitative evaluations—qualitative studies offer important insight of experiences of self-defense laws, which we will consider in future research (see protocol, https://osf.io/uz68e ). To create a succinct summary, wherever possible, we focused on a single intervention–outcome effect estimate from each study based on predefined criteria and evaluated risk of bias for the most at-risk outcome. Our risk of bias assessments are thus conservative, and synthesized estimates are not always those highlighted by study authors. In doing so, we maximized consistency among study results and used the highest quality estimates. We focused on outcomes for which there were at least 2 studies to synthesize (all study results are in the Appendix Tables G and H).

Our review placed no restrictions on location—we sought to include all international evidence meeting our inclusion criteria. We only searched in English and our search terms were influenced by the US context (e.g., including SYG), which may mean that we missed relevant studies globally. However, to our knowledge, this review produced the most comprehensive synthesis of the quantitative evidence on the impacts of expanding civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense in the United States to date. 2,4,7,60 We searched for and included gray literature, which minimizes publication bias. Although all evidence was US-based, our findings may have implications for future reforms to self-defense laws governing civilian use of deadly force internationally and underscore the need for robust and diverse scientific evidence to guide policy decisions.

Conclusions

Self-defense laws have rapidly changed in the United States with the introduction of SYG laws in the past 15 years. Expanding civilian rights to use deadly force in self-defense outside the home has been associated with modest increases in violent crime rates on average across the United States but robust increases in some states, most notably Florida. There are racial inequities in the application of SYG laws to self-defense cases, at least in Florida, with cases involving racial minority victims ruled justifiable more often, accounting for case characteristics like firearm use. Further evaluations are needed on differences in violence, injury, and criminal justice outcomes by state and legal variant, the mechanisms of impacts, and social inequities associated with altering civilian rights to use deadly force, across the United States and internationally. Our findings demonstrate the importance of using scientific evidence on both population and equity impacts of self-defense laws to guide legislative action that promotes public health and safety for all.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was funded by the University of Oxford Fell Fund (171/007). A. R. Yakubovich is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (HSI-166388).

We thank Eli Harris for supporting the design of our search strategy and retrieval of study full texts.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

M. Degli Esposti, D. K. Humphreys, and D. J. Wiebe were authors on three of the primary studies analyzed as part of this review.

HUMAN PARTICIPANT PROTECTION

Human participant protection is not applicable because this is a systematic review.

See also Burris, p. 559 .

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog
• Stand Your Ground Laws: 50-State Survey

One of the main defenses to a charge of a violent crime is self-defense. This generally means that the defendant was justified in their actions if they reasonably believed that they faced an imminent threat of harm, and if their response was necessary and proportionate to the threat. Self-defense sometimes may justify the use of deadly force, potentially allowing a defendant to defeat a homicide charge.

Recently, the use of deadly force in self-defense has sparked fierce debate. Over half the states in the U.S. have adopted “stand your ground” laws. These generally allow a person to use deadly force in self-defense even if they could safely leave the confrontation instead, as long as they have a right to be in the place where the confrontation occurs. Courts in several other states have established a judicial version of the “stand your ground” rule.

Most of the remaining states still adhere to the traditional rule that there is a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. In other words, a defendant cannot use self-defense to defeat a homicide charge if they could have safely left the confrontation. However, these states usually provide exceptions when a confrontation occurs in the defendant’s home, and sometimes in their workplace.

In the 1921 case of Brown v. U.S. , Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court in finding that the failure to retreat is a circumstance to be considered with others in order to determine whether the defendant went further than they were justified in doing. However, it is not a categorical proof of guilt.

This survey focuses on whether a state endorses “stand your ground” or the duty to retreat in the context of deadly force in self-defense. However, this area of the law contains many nuances. Someone who is suspected of a violent crime should consult a criminal lawyer who can develop a strategy to protect their rights.

• Connecticut
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Washington, D.C.
• West Virginia

Alabama Stand Your Ground Law

Alabama has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Code of Alabama Section 13A-3-23 describes situations in which a person may use force in defense of a person. The law provides that a person who is justified under this statute in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where they have the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand their ground.

Alaska Stand Your Ground Law

Alaska has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Alaska Statutes Section 11.81.335 describes situations in which a person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense. It technically provides that a person may not use deadly force if they know that they can avoid this necessity by leaving the area of the encounter with complete personal safety. However, the statute establishes that there is no duty to leave the area if the person is in any place where they have a right to be.

Alaska also explicitly extends a version of the stand your ground rule to certain justified uses of force in defense of property and premises under Section 11.81.350 , which include some uses of deadly force.

Arizona Stand Your Ground Law

Arizona has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Arizona Revised Statutes Section 13-405 describes situations in which a person is justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense. It provides that a person has no duty to retreat before using deadly physical force under this law if the person is in a place where they may legally be, and they are not engaged in an unlawful act.

Arizona also explicitly extends a version of the stand your ground rule to certain justified uses of force in crime prevention (under Section 13-411 ) or in the defense of a residential structure or occupied vehicle (under Section 13-418 ), which include some uses of deadly force.

Arkansas Stand Your Ground Law

Arkansas has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Arkansas Code Section 5-2-607 describes situations in which a person is justified in using deadly physical force in defense of a person. It provides that a person is not required to retreat before using deadly physical force if they are lawfully present at the location where deadly physical force is used, and certain other requirements are met.

California Stand Your Ground Law

California has a judicial stand your ground rule.

In cases such as People v. Collins , California courts have found that a person has a right in self-defense to use the force necessary to repel an assault when they are justified in believing that an assailant intends to commit a felony on them. The person is not required to retreat but may stand their ground. They have a right in self-defense to repel the assault, even to the point of killing the assailant. (California criminal jury instructions also provide this rule.)

Colorado Stand Your Ground Law

Colorado has a judicial stand your ground rule.

In Idrogo v. People , the Colorado Supreme Court explicitly rejected the argument that there is a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. The Court noted that it has consistently affirmed that an innocent victim of an assault is not bound to retreat before using deadly force when the use of deadly force is reasonable under the circumstances.

Connecticut Stand Your Ground Law

Connecticut generally imposes a duty to retreat.

Connecticut General Statutes Section 53a-19 describes situations in which a person is justified in using physical force in defense of a person. It provides that a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if they know that they can avoid the necessity of using deadly force with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of property to someone asserting a claim of right to it, or by complying with a demand to abstain from performing an act that they are not obliged to perform. However, there is no duty to retreat if the victim is in their dwelling or workplace and was not the initial aggressor.

Delaware Stand Your Ground Law

Delaware generally imposes a duty to retreat.

11 Delaware Code Section 464 describes situations in which the use of force is justifiable in self-protection. It provides that the use of deadly force is not justifiable if the defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right to it, or by complying with a demand that they abstain from performing an act that they are not legally obligated to perform. However, a person does not have a duty to retreat in or from their dwelling, or in or from their workplace, unless they were the initial aggressor.

Florida Stand Your Ground Law

Florida has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Florida Statutes Section 776.012 describes situations in which a person is justified in using force in defense of a person. Someone who uses deadly force in accordance with this law does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand their ground if they are not engaged in a criminal activity and are in a place where they have a right to be. Someone who uses non-deadly force in accordance with this law does not have a duty to retreat before using this force.

Florida also explicitly extends a version of the stand your ground rule to certain justified uses of force in defense of property under Section 776.031 , which include some uses of deadly force.

Georgia Stand Your Ground Law

Georgia has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Georgia Code Section 16-3-23.1 provides that a person who uses force in accordance with the statutes involving the use of force in defense of self or others ( Section 16-3-21 ), the use of force in defense of a habitation ( Section 16-3-23 ), or the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation ( Section 16-3-24 ) has no duty to retreat. They have a right to stand their ground and use force as permitted by these statutes, including deadly force.

Hawaii Stand Your Ground Law

Hawaii generally imposes a duty to retreat.

Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 703-304 describes situations in which the use of force is justifiable in self-protection. It provides that deadly force is not justifiable if the person knows that they can avoid the necessity of using deadly force with complete safety by retreating, surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right to it, or complying with a demand to abstain from an action that they have no duty to take. However, a person is not obliged to retreat from their dwelling or workplace, unless they were the initial aggressor or are assailed in the workplace by someone whose workplace the person knows it to be.

Idaho Stand Your Ground Law

Idaho has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Idaho Code Section 19-202A provides that someone who is exercising the right of self-defense or defense of others does not need to retreat from any place where that person has a right to be. They may stand their ground and defend themselves (or someone else) by the use of all force and means that would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge without the benefit of hindsight.

Illinois Stand Your Ground Law

Illinois has a judicial stand your ground rule.

In People v. McGraw , the Illinois Supreme Court explained that a person who is unlawfully assaulted by someone else and put in apparent danger of their life or great bodily harm while they are in a place where they have a lawful right to be does not need to attempt to escape. They may lawfully stand their ground and meet force with force, even if this involves killing the assailant, when this is necessary or apparently necessary to save their own life or prevent great bodily harm.

Indiana Stand Your Ground Law

Indiana has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Indiana Code Section 35-41-3-2 provides that a person is justified in using deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to a third person or them, or the commission of a forcible felony.

The statute also explicitly extends a version of the stand your ground rule to certain situations involving an intrusion into a person’s dwelling, curtilage (the area immediately surrounding the dwelling), or occupied vehicle, as well as aircraft hijacking.

Iowa Stand Your Ground Law

Iowa has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Iowa Code Section 704.1 provides that a person who is not engaged in illegal activity has no duty to retreat from any place where they are lawfully present before using force as specified in the statutes discussing reasonable or deadly force. The statute also describes situations in which reasonable force can include deadly force.

Kansas Stand Your Ground Law

Kansas has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Kansas Statutes Section 21-5222 describes situations in which a person is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, in defense of a person. It notes that a person is not required to retreat if they are using force in self-defense or defense of others. Section 21-5230 further provides that a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place where they have a right to be has no duty to retreat. They have the right to stand their ground and use any force that they would be justified in using under various Kansas laws.

Kentucky Stand Your Ground Law

Kentucky has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Section 503.050 describes situations in which the use of force, including deadly force, in self-protection is justifiable. It provides that a person does not have a duty to retreat prior to the use of deadly force. Furthermore, Section 503.055 provides that a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any place where they have a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand their ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if the person reasonably believes that this is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to someone else or them, or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.

Kentucky also explicitly extends a version of the stand your ground rule to certain justified uses of force in protection of someone else (under Section 503.070 ) or in protection of property (under Section 503.080 ), which include some uses of deadly force.

Louisiana Stand Your Ground Law

Louisiana has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Section 14:20 describes situations in which a homicide is justifiable. It provides that a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where they have a right to be has no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided in the statute. They may stand their ground and meet force with force. A judge or jury must not consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that this was reasonable and apparently necessary.

Louisiana also explicitly extends a version of the stand your ground rule to certain justified uses of non-deadly force, which Section 14:19 describes.

Maine Stand Your Ground Law

Maine generally imposes a duty to retreat.

17-A Maine Revised Statutes Section 108 describes situations in which a person is justified in using force in defense of a person. In general, a person cannot use deadly force if they know that they can safely retreat from the encounter, surrender property to someone asserting a colorable claim of right to it, or comply with a demand that they abstain from performing an act that they are not obliged to perform. However, they are not required to retreat if they are in their dwelling and were not the initial aggressor, or in certain circumstances involving a threat of bodily injury posed by a trespasser in a dwelling.

Maryland Stand Your Ground Law

Maryland generally imposes a duty to retreat.

In cases such as Burch v. State , the Maryland Supreme Court (formerly the Maryland Court of Appeals) has noted that an element of self-defense is the duty of the defendant to retreat or avoid danger if this is within their power and consistent with their safety. However, a person faced with the danger of an attack on their dwelling does not need to retreat from their home to escape the danger. They may stand their ground and may kill the attacker if necessary to repel the attack.

Massachusetts Stand Your Ground Law

Massachusetts generally imposes a duty to retreat.

In Commonwealth v. Lapointe , the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court approved a jury instruction explaining that the right to use deadly force in self-defense is not available until a person has made use of all reasonable and proper means in the circumstances to avoid combat. This applies even if someone is assaulted or threatened in their home by a lawful visitor. ( Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 278 Section 8a provides that an occupant of a dwelling has no duty to retreat from a person who is unlawfully in the dwelling before using force, including deadly force, when it is justified under this law.)

Michigan Stand Your Ground Law

Michigan has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Michigan Compiled Laws Section 780.972 provides that someone who is not committing a crime (and has not committed a crime) when they use deadly force may use this force against another person wherever they have a legal right to be with no duty to retreat in certain situations described by the law. These are when the person honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to someone else or them, or to prevent an imminent sexual assault of someone else or them.

The statute also provides that a person who is not committing a crime (and has not committed a crime) when they use non-deadly force may use this force against another person wherever they have a legal right to be with no duty to retreat if they honestly and reasonably believe that the use of this force is necessary to defend someone else or them from the imminent unlawful use of force by another person.

Minnesota Stand Your Ground Law

Minnesota generally imposes a duty to retreat.

In State v. Carothers , the Minnesota Supreme Court explained that someone who kills someone else in self-defense must have attempted to retreat if reasonably possible. However, there is no duty to retreat in defense of dwelling situations, or when these circumstances are characterized as self-defense in the home.

Mississippi Stand Your Ground Law

Mississippi has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Mississippi Code Section 97-3-15 describes situations in which a homicide is justifiable. When it is justifiable based on grounds such as self-defense or defense of others, a person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity has no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the person is in a place where they have a right to be. A judge or jury must not consider their failure to retreat as evidence that their use of force was unnecessary, excessive, or unreasonable.

Missouri Stand Your Ground Law

Missouri has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Missouri Revised Statutes Section 563.031 describes situations in which a person is justified in using force, including deadly force, in defense of a person. It provides that a person does not have a duty to retreat if they are in any location where they have the right to be.

Montana Stand Your Ground Law

Montana has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Montana Code Section 45-3-110 provides that a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life generally has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force (including deadly force) when it is justified under various Montana laws.

Nebraska Stand Your Ground Law

Nebraska generally imposes a duty to retreat.

Nebraska Revised Statutes Section 28-1409 describes situations in which the use of force is justifiable in self-protection. It provides that the use of deadly force is not justifiable if the person knows that they can avoid the necessity of using deadly force with complete safety by retreating, surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right to it, or complying with a demand that they abstain from an action that they have no duty to take. However, they are not obliged to retreat from their dwelling or workplace, unless they were the initial aggressor or are attacked in their workplace by another person whose workplace they know it to be.

Nebraska also explicitly extends a version of the duty to retreat to situations involving the use of force for the protection of other people, which Section 28-1410 describes.

Nevada Stand Your Ground Law

Nevada has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Nevada Revised Statutes Section 200.120 describes situations in which a homicide is justifiable. It provides that a person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as permitted under this law if they are not the original aggressor, they have a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used, and they are not actively engaged in conduct furthering criminal activity when deadly force is used.

New Hampshire Stand Your Ground Law

New Hampshire has a statutory stand your ground rule.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Section 627:4 describes situations in which a person is justified in using force, including deadly force, in defense of a person. It technically provides that a person is not justified in using deadly force if they know that they (and the person defended, if different) can with complete safety retreat from the encounter, surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right to it, or comply with a demand that they abstain from performing an act that they are not obliged to perform. However, the statute provides that a person is not required to retreat if they are anywhere that they have a right to be and were not the initial aggressor.

New Jersey Stand Your Ground Law

New Jersey generally imposes a duty to retreat.

New Jersey Revised Statutes Section 2C:3-4 describes situations in which the use of force is justifiable in self-protection. It provides that the use of deadly force is not justifiable if the person knows that they can avoid the necessity of using this force with complete safety by retreating, surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right to it, or complying with a demand that they abstain from an action that they have no duty to take. However, they are not obliged to retreat from their dwelling, unless they were the initial aggressor.

New Mexico Stand Your Ground Law

New Mexico has a judicial stand your ground rule.

In State v. Anderson , the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed that a person who is threatened with an attack does not need to retreat. They may stand their ground and defend themselves. (New Mexico Uniform Jury Instruction 14-5190 also provides this rule.)

New York Stand Your Ground Law

New York generally imposes a duty to retreat.

New York Penal Law Section 35.15 describes situations in which a person may use physical force in defense of a person. In most situations, a person may not use deadly physical force if they know that they can avoid the necessity of using this force with complete personal safety by retreating. However, there is no duty to retreat if the person is in their dwelling and not the initial aggressor. The statutory duty to retreat also does not apply if a person reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act, or robbery, or if they reasonably believe that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary under certain limited circumstances.

North Carolina Stand Your Ground Law

North Carolina has a statutory stand your ground rule.

North Carolina General Statutes Section 14-51.3 provides that a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place where they have the lawful right to be if they reasonably believe that this force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to a person, or in certain circumstances permitted by Section 14-51.2 . That statute, which addresses the protection of a home, workplace, or motor vehicle, also contains a version of the stand your ground rule.

North Dakota Stand Your Ground Law

North Dakota has a statutory stand your ground rule.

North Dakota Century Code Section 12.1-05-07 explains when deadly force is justified. It technically provides that the use of deadly force is generally not justified in self-defense or defense of others if it can be avoided with safety by retreat or other conduct involving minimal interference with the freedom of the person under threat. However, the law provides that a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity that gives rise to the need for deadly force, and who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, generally is not required to retreat within or from any place where the person otherwise is legally allowed to be.

Ohio Stand Your Ground Law

Ohio has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Ohio Revised Code Section 2901.09 provides that a person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of others, or defense of their residence if they are in a place where they lawfully have a right to be. Moreover, a judge or jury must not consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether the person reasonably believed that the force was necessary.

Oklahoma Stand Your Ground Law

Oklahoma has a statutory stand your ground rule.

21 Oklahoma Statutes Section 1289.25 generally provides that a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any place where they have a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand their ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if they reasonably believe that this is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to any person, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Oregon Stand Your Ground Law

Oregon has a judicial stand your ground rule.

In State v. Sandoval , the Oregon Supreme Court held that the legislature did not intend the statute limiting the justifiable use of deadly physical force ( Oregon Revised Statutes Section 161.219 ) to require a person to retreat before using deadly force to defend against the imminent use of deadly physical force by someone else.

Pennsylvania Stand Your Ground Law

Pennsylvania has a statutory stand your ground rule, as long as the aggressor is using a lethal weapon.

18 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Section 505 technically provides that the use of deadly force in self-protection is not justifiable if a person knows that they can avoid the necessity of using this force with complete safety by retreating. However, the law also provides that a person who is not engaged in a criminal activity, is not in illegal possession of a firearm, and is attacked in any place where they would have a duty to retreat does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand their ground and use force, including deadly force, if they have a right to be in the place where they were attacked, they believe that this is immediately necessary to protect them against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or forcible sexual intercourse, and the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses a firearm or another lethal weapon.

(There is no duty to retreat at a person’s dwelling or workplace, unless they were the initial aggressor or are attacked in their workplace by someone whose workplace they know it to be.)

Pennsylvania also explicitly extends a version of the stand your ground rule to certain justified uses of force for the protection of other people, which Section 506 describes.

Rhode Island Stand Your Ground Law

Rhode Island generally imposes a duty to retreat.

In cases such as State v. Guerrero , the Rhode Island Supreme Court has explained that a person who believes that they are threatened by someone else generally must attempt to retreat before using deadly force if they are consciously aware of an open, safe, and available avenue of escape. However, the Court has ruled in cases such as State v. Walton that there is no duty to retreat in the home if a person is attacked by an intruder or trespasser, or by someone who initially entered as a guest but became a trespasser by remaining after being told to leave.

South Carolina Stand Your Ground Law

South Carolina has a statutory stand your ground rule.

South Carolina Code of Laws Section 16-11-440 generally provides that a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place where they have a right to be has no duty to retreat. They have the right to stand their ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if they reasonably believe that this is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to a person, or to prevent the commission of a violent crime.

South Dakota Stand Your Ground Law

South Dakota has a statutory stand your ground rule.

South Dakota Codified Laws Section 22-18-4.1 provides that a person who uses deadly force in accordance with that statute, which covers certain situations involving defense of a person, does not have a duty to retreat. They have the right to stand their ground if they are not engaged in a criminal activity and in a place where they have a right to be.

South Dakota also explicitly extends a version of the stand your ground rule to certain justified uses of non-deadly force in defense of a person, as Section 22-18-4 describes.

Tennessee Stand Your Ground Law

Tennessee has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Tennessee Code Section 39-11-611 , which covers self-defense, provides that a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where they have a right to be has no duty to retreat before using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if certain circumstances are present. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, the danger creating this belief must be real or honestly believed at the time, and the belief must be founded on reasonable grounds.

More generally, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where they have a right to be has no duty to retreat before using force when they reasonably believe that this is immediately necessary to protect against the other person’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.

Texas Stand Your Ground Law

Texas has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Texas Penal Code Section 9.32 describes situations in which a person is justified in using deadly force in defense of a person. It provides that a person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and is not engaged in criminal activity when the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by that statute.

Texas also explicitly includes a version of the stand your ground rule in Section 9.31 , which describes self-defense more generally.

Utah Stand Your Ground Law

Utah has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Utah Code Section 76-2-402 addresses the use of force in defense of a person, including deadly force. It provides that a person generally does not have a duty to retreat in a place where they have lawfully entered or remained. Moreover, the failure of a person to retreat is not a relevant factor in determining whether a person who used force acted reasonably.

Vermont Stand Your Ground Law

Vermont has a judicial stand your ground rule.

In State v. Hatcher , the Vermont Supreme Court approved a jury instruction that a person is not required to retreat if they honestly and reasonably believe that it is immediately necessary to use deadly force to protect themselves from an imminent threat of death or bodily injury. The Vermont Model Criminal Jury Instructions now include this rule.

Virginia Stand Your Ground Law

Virginia has a judicial stand your ground rule.

In cases such as Foote v. Commonwealth , Virginia courts have ruled that a person does not need to retreat when they are completely without fault. They are permitted to stand their ground and repel an attack by force, including deadly force, if it is necessary.

Washington Stand Your Ground Law

Washington has a judicial stand your ground rule.

In cases such as State v. Redmond , the Washington Supreme Court has found that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where they have a right to be. The Washington Pattern Jury Instructions on justifiable homicide also take this approach.

Washington, D.C. Stand Your Ground Law

Washington, D.C. does not strictly impose a duty to retreat, but the issue of retreat may be relevant more generally.

In Gillis v. U.S. , the District of Columbia Court of Appeals noted that this jurisdiction has sought to reach a middle ground between the two extremes of the right to stand and kill and the duty to “retreat to the wall” before killing. It approved a jury instruction as correctly stating the law of Washington, D.C. when it did not impose a duty to retreat but allowed a failure to retreat, together with all the other circumstances, to be considered by the jury in determining if there was a case of true self-defense.

West Virginia Stand Your Ground Law

West Virginia has a statutory stand your ground rule.

West Virginia Code Section 55-7-22 provides that someone who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is attacked in any place where they have a legal right to be outside their home or residence may use reasonable and proportionate force against an intruder or attacker. More specifically, they may use deadly force against an intruder or attacker in a place that is not their residence without a duty to retreat if they reasonably believe that a person is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, from which they can only be saved by the use of deadly force against the intruder or attacker.

(The statute also explicitly provides that a lawful occupant in a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker under circumstances described in the statute.)

Wisconsin Stand Your Ground Law

Wisconsin does not strictly impose a duty to retreat, but the issue of retreat may be relevant more generally.

Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instruction 810, which applies to self-defense, provides that there is no duty to retreat. However, in determining whether the defendant reasonably believed that the amount of force used was necessary, the jury may consider whether the defendant had the opportunity to retreat with safety, whether this retreat was feasible, and whether the defendant knew of the opportunity to retreat. The instruction applies to both deadly and non-deadly force cases. In State v. Wenger , the Wisconsin Court of Appeals appeared to approve this instruction, noting that retreat goes to the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct.

Wisconsin Statutes Section 939.48 describes certain situations involving a person’s dwelling, vehicle, or place of business in which a court may not consider whether the person had an opportunity to flee or retreat before using deadly force.

Wyoming has a statutory stand your ground rule.

Wyoming Statutes Section 6-2-602 , which covers self-defense, provides that the use of defensive force is reasonable when it is the defensive force that a reasonable person in similar circumstances would consider necessary to prevent an injury or loss, including deadly force if this is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to the person using the deadly force or someone else. A person who is attacked in any place where they are lawfully present does not have a duty to retreat before using reasonable defensive force as described above, provided that they are not the initial aggressor and are not engaged in illegal activity.

Last reviewed March 2024

Criminal Law Center Contents   

• Criminal Law Center
• Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Criminal Sentencing Law
• Bail, Bonds, and Relevant Legal Concerns
• Restitution for Victims in Criminal Law
• Plea Bargains in Criminal Law Cases
• Receiving Immunity for Testimony in a Criminal Law Case
• Legal Classification of Criminal Offenses
• The Abandonment Defense in Criminal Law Cases
• The Consent Defense in Criminal Law Cases
• The Entrapment Defense in Criminal Law Cases
• The Insanity Defense in Criminal Law Cases
• The Intoxication Defense in Criminal Law Cases
• The Mistake of Fact or Law Defense in Criminal Law Cases
• The Necessity Defense in Criminal Law Cases
• Self-Defense in Criminal Law Cases
• Imperfect Self-Defense in Criminal Law Cases
• The Duress Defense in Criminal Law Cases
• Criminal Procedure Law
• Types of Criminal Offenses
• Alcohol Crimes Under the Law
• Parole and Probation Law
• Expungement and Sealing of Criminal Records
• Offenses Included in Other Crimes Under the Law
• The Mental State Requirement in Criminal Law Cases
• Derivative Responsibility in Criminal Law Cases
• Working with a Criminal Lawyer
• Criminal Law FAQs
• Domestic Violence Restraining Orders Laws and Forms: 50-State Survey
• 50-State Survey on Abortion Laws
• Gun Laws: 50-State Survey
• Death Penalty Laws: 50-State Survey
• Criminal Law Topics
• Find a Criminal Law Lawyer

Related Areas   

• DUI & DWI Law Center
• Traffic Tickets Legal Center
• Immigration Law Center
• Tax Law Center
• Military Law Center
• Personal Injury Law Center
• Animal and Dog Law Center
• Communications and Internet Law Center
• Aviation Law Center
• Cannabis Law Center
• Constitutional Law Center
• Related Areas
• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Russian Court Orders Prominent Human Rights Group to Shut

The Supreme Court ruled that Memorial International, which chronicled political repression in Russia, must be liquidated.

By Ivan Nechepurenko and Andrew E. Kramer

MOSCOW — Russia’s Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the nation’s most prominent human rights organization must close, signaling President Vladimir V. Putin’s longstanding determination to control the narrative of some of the most painful and repressive chapters of Russian history.

The court ordered the liquidation of Memorial International, which chronicled the harrowing persecutions in the infamous Stalin-era labor camps in an effort to preserve the memory of its victims. The group, founded by the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Andrei Sakharov and other dissidents more than three decades ago, became a symbol of the country’s emerging democracy after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The decision comes after a year of broad crackdown on opposition in Russia as the Kremlin moved aggressively to stifle dissent — in the news media, in religious groups, on social networks and especially among activists and political opponents, hundreds of whom have been harassed, jailed or forced into exile.

Shutting down Memorial is also another step in Mr. Putin’s effort to recast Russia’s legacy as a series of glorious accomplishments and soften the image of the often-brutal Soviet regime. While the state opened a comprehensive Gulag history museum in Moscow and Mr. Putin laid flowers at a new monument to the victims of Soviet repression, the increasingly emboldened Kremlin has moved aggressively to remove alternative interpretations of Russian history by organizations it does not control.

In particular Mr. Putin is eager to convince Russians that their country is surrounded by enemies who wish to oversee its demise, a tack he has taken recently in demanding that NATO guarantee it will not expand farther eastward toward Russia. As such, the Kremlin wants the Russian public to focus on foreign foes instead of crimes committed by homegrown dictators.

In recent years, Mr. Putin has shown a keen interest in shaping interpretation of Russia’s history, publishing his views in lengthy articles about the Soviet Union’s key contribution to the victory over Nazism and “the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” His viewpoint includes a renunciation of the democratic steps taken in the 1990s, which included reforms, self-criticism and social and economic upheaval.

The hearing drew dozens of protesters outside the courthouse, and afterward families of those affected by Stalins’ repressions and opposition figures expressed outrage, pointing to the deepening level of repression under Mr. Putin.

Ilya Miklashevsky, 65, whose father and grandfather were both imprisoned in the gulag, said Memorial’s closure represents “a new step downward,” adding, “the country is sleepily moving downhill.”

Sergei Mitrokhin, a Russian opposition politician, said that Memorial was “the last barrier on the way to complete Stalinization of the society and state.”

“What we have now is still lite Stalinism,” he said, speaking on Ekho Moskvy, a radio station. “I am afraid it can turn way worse. It is a tragedy for our country.”

Memorial International oversees an archive of victims of Soviet persecution, mostly in the era of the gulags, the forced labor camps where Russians were imprisoned in harsh, debilitating conditions. Its database contains more than three million names — no more than a quarter of all victims, according to the organization’s estimates.

Memorial’s lawyers have dismissed all of the accusations against the group as unfounded and called its persecution “politically motivated.” In a statement , Memorial said that its members were intent on “finding legal ways” to continue their work.

In Washington, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said the United States condemned the decision to close Memorial, which he called “one of Russia’s oldest and most respected historical and human rights organizations.”

Jan Z. Raczynski, chairman of the board of Memorial International, said that the group intended to appeal the ruling and that it would be allowed to operate for at least a month while the appeal was pending. It is unclear what will happen to Memorial’s archive and other physical items, including the ones it displays in a subterranean Moscow museum.

In a separate hearing on Wednesday, the Moscow City Court will rule on whether to shut down Memorial’s Human Rights Center, which compiles a list of current political prisoners in Russia. The center is accused of “justifying terrorist activities” by including members of banned religious organizations on the list.

The list includes Aleksei A. Navalny, the imprisoned Russian opposition leader, who was poisoned in a clandestine operation widely believed to have been organized by the Russian special services. In Siberia on Tuesday, the authorities raided the homes of two regional heads of Mr. Navalny’s political movement, branded as “extremist” by a Russian court in June.

Mr. Raczynski said that the Russian authorities were seeking to whitewash Soviet history, and that the prosecutor had directly addressed historical issues in arguments before the Supreme Court, though the case was ostensibly about violation of the foreign agent law.

The legal pressure, he said, was intended to shut both Memorial’s historical research into Soviet repressions and current human rights advocacy. The two branches of the group’s work are related, he said, and both are now “seen as undermining the authority of the government.”

Criticism of Soviet policies, he said, runs counter to the “current government’s propagandistic concept that, ‘our government was always good.’”

“There’s an old, banal formula that whoever doesn’t know the past is doomed to repeat it,” Mr. Raczynski said. “The situation of the past decade shows we are moving in that direction.”

In another signal of the state’s efforts to block Memorial, a Russian court on Monday extended the term of Yuri Dmitriev, a historian who chaired the group’s regional office in Karelia, to 15 years from 13. Mr. Dmitriev, who discovered mass graves resulting from Stalin’s brutalities, was convicted of sexually abusing his adopted daughter, a charge he denied.

The judge’s ruling on Tuesday cited what it said were repeated violations of the foreign agents law. Passed in 2012, the measure has been criticized by the country’s opposition as a vehicle intended by the Russian state to stifle all dissent. It orders all organizations that receive foreign funding and engage in loosely defined political activity to label themselves as “foreign agents,” a designation that carries the stigma of being on the payroll of foreign governments.

The law imposes onerous requirements on those designated, including extensive financial disclosures. Memorial’s leaders say they have made every effort to comply with the requirements even though they regard the law as unconstitutional.

Yelena Zhemkova, Memorial’s executive director, said that mistakes are possible in its gargantuan task of keeping a registry of victims, but that they are “always corrected.”

“What Memorial does represents 33 years of hard work of very many people,” Ms. Zhemkova told the court. “We work for the benefit of our people and our country.”

During Tuesday’s hearing, Aleksei Zhafyarov, the prosecutor, said Memorial only “speculated on the topic of political repressions” but that in reality it tried to portray the Soviet Union as “a terrorist state” and aimed to “rehabilitate Nazi criminals.”

Mr. Zhafyarov’s statements echoed earlier comments by Mr. Putin, who called Memorial “one of the most reputable organizations” during a meeting with his human rights council this month, but also accused it of glorifying Holocaust perpetrators.

Mr. Raczynski, the chairman of Memorial’s board, said the state’s arguments were specious.

“The general prosecutor said we try to portray the Soviet Union as a terrorist organization,” he said. “Well, we don’t have to try. The Soviet Union was a terrorist organization. In no other country were so many citizens imprisoned under false political accusations.”

Ivan Nechepurenko has been a reporter with the Moscow bureau since 2015, covering politics, economics, sports, and culture in Russia and the former Soviet republics. He was born and raised in St. Petersburg, Russia. More about Ivan Nechepurenko

Andrew E. Kramer is a reporter based in the Moscow bureau. He was part of a team that won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting for a series on Russia’s covert projection of power. More about Andrew E. Kramer