February 01, 2011

Horse 1142 - So called "Castle Doctrine" is based on lies.

During the last fortnight or so, debate raged in America about the effectiveness of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford and five other people including federal judge John Roll and a nine year old girl.


One of the justifications for (what I think is dangerously stupid) the justification of the Second Amendment, namely the "right to bear arms" is apparently something called "Castle Doctrine".

Castle Doctrine it seems gives someone the right to use deadly force to stop intruders coming into their home, because "a man's home is his castle" right? Legally it provides an excuse for murder, though under jurisdictions that have Castle Doctrine it is fobbed off as "justifiable homicide".

Supposedly Castle Doctrine arises from English Common Law, however I can not find any evidence that such a thing ever existed in English Common Law at all.

Enter Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
The font of all knowledge Wikipedia (which is about as reliable as asking blokes down the pub), states that "Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine arising from English Common Law" and then cites The New Jersey Self Defense Law, 2008. I have a problem with this.
Why is a citation for something which is grounded in "English Common Law" quoting something from the State of New Jersey? The text itself reads:
"The “Castle Doctrine” is a long-standing American legal concept arising from English Common Law that provides that one's abode is a special area in which one enjoys certain protections and immunities, that one is not obligated to retreat before defending oneself against attack, and that one may do so without fear of prosecution."
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A0500/159_I1.PDF
Again there's the pesky phrase "arising from English Common Law" but no actual evidence or citations to prove this.

So I then did a search through Google to find where Castle Doctrine came from and found this from the Connecticut General Assembly entitled "CASTLE DOCTRINE AND SELF-DEFENSE":
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-r-0052.htm
"You asked about the “castle doctrine,” how it acquired its name, how many states have adopted bills on it, and any information about its effect in states that have adopted it."

It then says later:
"It is defined differently in different states. The name appears to have its origin in the English common law rules protecting a person's home and the phrase 'one's home is one's castle'."
Yet again this states that it has "its origin in the English common law rules" and again doesn't state where in English Common Law it comes from.

I then went to the State Library of NSW in search of this increasingly frustratingly difficult to find source from English Common Law and found four very heavy books:
- Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, 3rd Edition (Thomson Reuters)
- Turning Points of the Common Law, Volumes 1 and 2 by The Right Hon The Lord Cooke of Thorndon KBE (he sounds dead posh, innit like?)
- Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History: Private Law to 1750 by John Baker

You'd think that specialist subject books on the sources of English Common Law would at least have a single example of Castle Doctrine actually in English Common Law cases, but I found NOTHING. Zero, zip, zilch, nada, diddly-squat!

Common Law is also known as Case Law and arises from precedent. Judges hand down their decisions through the various courts and tribunals, and if a similar case arises in future, then the principles which guided the first judge will be Common to those which guide the next one; hence the description.

The problem is that I can't find even a single example of Castle Doctrine ever existing in any English Common Law Cases; this lead me to think that it is a complete fabrication, a fib, a lie, an untruth, a pile of pants and a load of horse manure. Have I made myself clear yet?

Castle Doctrine is based on NOTHING!
... unless proven otherwise.

No comments: