Ohio prosecutors warned two years ago that the "castle doctrine" would add an unwelcome page to the playbook of criminal-defense lawyers.
The 2008 law, designed to protect the grandmother who shoots an intruder in her home in the middle of the night, increasingly is being used to defend murder suspects as not legally responsible for their deeds.
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Common Goals of Gunloons and Criminals
Remember the Castle Doctrine? Gunloons told us this was necessary so that they could sling lead in their homes at will. Seems criminals like it as well:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh, you mean the state has to prove murder now? How terrible!
ReplyDeleteIn Ohio all that castle doctrine does is shift the burden of proof from the homeowner to the state. Nothing changed as to when or where deadly force can be used. Nothing has changed to the homicide laws. The only difference is that a person charged is innocent until proven guilty like most other crimes.
I hate to break this to you all. The problem is not the Castle Doctrine, the problem is the system.
ReplyDeleteSadly when the courts allow it, you can use any defense you so choose. As times change, the defenses change. At one time defendants used the childhood as a cop-out for their crimes, now they use Castle Doctrine. In a decade it will be something else.
I'm opposed to anything that makes it easier for people to commit aggression and get away with it. We have this problem already in the bizarre tabulations of DGUs that people keep quoting. Many of them are the exact opposite. When a so-called defensive action takes place in someone's home, it's even more likely to be mis-described as a legitimate self-defense action.
ReplyDelete