Defending one's home II
The Sunday Telegraph, which has adopted the Tony Martin law with gusto, has an editorial which is somewhat confused.It complains that the current guidelines, which allow for 'reasonable force' are too subjective and indeed it is 'decided by a government bureaucrat considering at leisure and in the safety of his own office'.
This is true as far as the CPS go (and -- shock -- Melanie Phillips makes the good point that it is rather rum of the Police Chief to complain when it is his officers who often show the worse lapses of judgement) but it not of course true of any trial, in which a Jury makes the decisions (a point forgotten in the Tony Martin case).
Anyway so it's the ambiguity of the law that the Telegraph doesn't like. It doesn't even like the proposed new law, saying it prefers the law in Oklahoma, which allows:
"Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force against another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against the occupant of the dwelling."
The Telegraph says,
"The wording of that law dispels all ambiguity about what a home-owner is permitted to do when confronted by an illegal intruder."
But of course it doesn't. The law says 'when the occupant has a reasonable belief'. This, you may note, is the same word 'reasonable' as in the current law (though obviously in a different context).
So still ambiguity, coupled now with a law that could see any number of people shot dead who weren't planning on burglary. Does that happen in Oklahoma? I have no idea. But note this -- Oklahoma's population density is under 50 per square mile. England's is around 900.
Finally, Patrick Mercer says on the same pages that this will reduce the number of burglaries. Perhaps. But it's worth recalling that burglaries are down by about 50% from the peak in 1995, the same time period as concern has grown over 'political correctness gone mad'. So it doesn't seem to be much of a factor in burglars' actions. Furthermore where will it end. Allowing shopkeepers to shoot dead people who shoplift would almost certainly reduce shoplifting - but at what cost?
Update: I also worry that the Telegraph's campaign will put householders at risk. By spreading misinformation that it is illegal to defend yourself, they will a) make people less prepared to defend themselves, and b) make burglars believe there is less chance of being attacked. A double whammy.
posted by Matthew @ 12/12/2004 10:37:00 AM
Comments: 0
