Whose Right Is It? Exploring Racial and Gender Disparities in the Application of the Stand Your Ground Law to Domestic Violence Cases

• In Event: Transforming Law and Order: The Impact of Justifiable Homicide on American Penality

Abstract

The outcome of the Marissa Alexander self-defense trial (State v. Alexander, 2011; Alexander v. State, 2013) has contributed to rising concerns among both the general public and Florida state legislators that the use of force as codified under the Stand Your Ground law has the potential to lead to racial bias. Furthermore, this case has also resulted in the increased scrutiny of the home presumption provision of the Stand Your Ground law which restricts domestic violence survivors from being able to utilize self-defense against their abusive partners. Given that women constitute the majority of domestic violence survivors, and that women of color are at an increased risk for domestic violence victimization, the current study evaluates Stand Your Ground domestic violence case outcomes in order to determine how the gender and race of the victims and defendants may lead to unequal protection under the law and also increase the opportunity for abuse to occur in domestic relationships. Policy implications and suggestions for how the Stand Your Ground law could be revised are discussed.

Author

• Denise N. Crisafi, University of Central Florida