The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Busting the Durable Myth that US Self-Defense Law Uniquely Fails to Protect Human Life"
T. Markus Funk, who has written extensively on self-defense law, has an article with this title here (in The Champion, the magazine of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers); here's the abstract:
The cases of Jordan Neely, Ahmaud Arbery, Kyle Rittenhouse, and George Alan Kelly brought the long-simmering national debate about self-defense to a full boil. Member of the legal commentariat quickly offered their takes on all aspects of these flashpoint cases, further sparking spirited discussion.
The disrupting note in the constant drumbeat of lawyers, legislators, academics, reporters, and other legal observers, however, is the claim that US self-defense law is exceptionally severe by international standards and comparatively underappreciative of the value of human life and the need to prevent violence.
The problem with this narrative is that it fails to recognize that US self-defense law is, in fact, very much within the international mainstream and, in many respects, is significantly more protective of attackers and more carefully calibrated to reduce overall societal violence than the self-defense laws of many other nations. As this article argues, in terms of impact, such erroneous claims seriously distract from the much-needed debate over US self-defense law's deeper public policy and moral grounding.
Much worth reading.
