Let 'the public' fight back? (Read the Initial Post Before Voting)

[John N]

The Justice system is designed to provide the following:

1. Punishment of the offender - A penalty for the offender and something 'suitable' to the crime because they have done wrong.
2. Removal of the offender from society - in a proportion of crimes, society is protected by the secure custody of the offender.
3. Retribution. Society feels that justice has been done by the penalties imposed.

You might also add rehabilitation to this list although it doesn't seem to be effective in the majority of cases.

If society doesn't feel that the system is providing these items properly then the justice system has a problem. It's interesting to see that both the Tories and Labour are talking of 'rebalancing' the system at the moment in favour of victims.

I have to disagree with you though Chris. I think that violence is not wrong, when used in the defence of yourself and your family. In that situation I would not hesitate to incapacitate someone using any and all means possible and I would worry about the consequences later. Hopefully, if it ever comes down to that, justice will be done.

Bren, perhaps you could suggest for us a form of words that could be used as the basis for the law as you think it should be? The difficulty in framing this is, I suspect, one of the reasons that 'reasonable force' is still the yardstick.

[Dominic]

I went with option #1, but not wholeheartedly. All this bollocks about "I broke into his house and he hit me and now I want compensation" needs sorting out.

On the other hand, somebody re-enacting that nasty scene from Reservoir Dogs is somebody I'd rather see removed from polite society, even if his victim was some git breaking in.

"Reasonable force" is a reasonable law, it's when people who think all violence is unreasonable get to make the decisions that the blood-boiling headlines crop up.

There's a 6-cell maglite in our bedroom - essentially a truncheon with a light at the end. Anybody coming in univited will get a very up-close introduction to it. That, in my book, is reasonable, and I'd be very unhappy to be taken to court for it.

If I then dragged his unconscious body to our (second story) balcony and threw him off it, I'd expect, and probably get, a jail sentence.

As for the "I broke a window to get in and cut myself on the broken glass and now I want to sue" stuff... well... let's just say that as far as I'm concerned, you should be able to put land mines in your garden without fear of consequences, so long as there's a warning sign up somewhere

[Garf]

Originally Posted by Dominic

If I then dragged his unconscious body to our (second story) balcony and threw him off it, I'd expect, and probably get, a jail sentence.

I worry about you sometimes dom

[Dominic]

I don't know what you mean

[PeteM]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

'Copied everywhere'? Where? We, in the UK, use the Adversarial Code and 99% of Europe use the Napoleonic Code - and NEVER the twain shall meet!

Well apart from the 30% of the world that we used to rule, most of Africa and the far east, in fact just about everywhere except Europe and South America

Europe is bound to use Napoleonic systems because that was based on Roman Law which was of course adopted by the Holy Roman Empire and once you have a working system in place it is next to impossible to replace

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by chrisch

John Nortcliff's post is the same position as my own. You cannot take away someone's rights even if they are a worthless shit. This must be the first principle of a civilised society.

Sorry Chris, you're wrong. Here's why.

What happens when scrotes are put in gaol for their offenses? Their rights and liberties are removed then. Why? Because society says that that individual has acted beyond the pale and as a result, society no longer wants that scrote walking the streets with the ability to continue in the fashion in which he conducted himself previously. Ergo removal of rights.

And the first principle of any 'civilised' society is defence and protection of the lives, freedoms and property of that society - just as any government's first order of business is defence of the realm.

And you also overlook that, by the very act of breaking and entering, a scrote removes the rights of the home-owner, and all in that house, to live in peace and safety without let or hindrance. So sorry mate, you're conjecture just doesn't hold water. High ideals are no defence against a knife-wielding scrote.

Originally Posted by chrisch

The legal system is not overly liberal, simply injust in its sentancing policy. In the US Tony Martin would have committed no crime. Whether the pikey bloke's family would have then been round to "tool up" Tony I don't know. But this is why the US, a gun-obsessed country, has so many killings...

I'm not advocating the changing of the current law to allow the general public to own firearms - and by extention use them in defence of their property: that way madness lies. It might, arguably, prompt scrotes to do likewise and then every Ned breaking into a house carries a gun - resulting an OK Corral type gig.

But working on the basis that most scrotes already carry knives, screw-drivers and an assortment of weapons into a break-in, then there has to be a situation where the home-owner has virtual perfect liberty (over and above those being removed by the scrote now facing him at 03.00 hrs in his own house) to redress the balance when faced with a knife-wielding scrote in his own living room in the wee-hours.

And if that redress involves the scrote taking forty licks, then so be it and the law needs to reflect that the scrote had the option not to break in and had he taken that option he wouldn't be the recipient of a rearranged face. The home-owner then needs to know that he will not then face prosecution for meting-out said redress.

Originally Posted by chrisch

I friend of mine did time for beating up a burglar, while the burglar got to tidy up old ladies gardens for a week. Had the punishments been reversed I think justice would have been done.....

Chris

Amen to that.


I say again, I'm not looking to engender a 'vigilantes' charter' here - more reflecting the frustration of a society which sees every available avenue not to accept responsibility for one's own actions (in the burglar's case) and the state actively backing these circumstances and then offering the scrote a wad of cash, by way of compo, for their ill-gotten gains.

If burglars knew that they potentially faced a damned good hiding if they broke into a house (without the ability to sue or seek compo), then they might think twice about doing so.

Conversely, if a home-owner, in defence of his property and family, knew that he was not going to face anything more sever than a caution for meting out said hiding, this might further redress the balance of one of New Labour's pet tenets: 'Natural Justice'.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by chrisch

I don't think this has ever been put forward as a defence. Assuming that you agree that the main thrust of the law following conviction should be to prevent re-offending is it not a better use of our money to try to cure a drug habit rather than giving Group 4 millions of pounds to fuck up and let people burn down expensive facilities (built with our money also)?

Going slightly off topic there Chris - we're on 'reasonable force' and defending yourself in the home here.

Originally Posted by Chrisch

Violence is wrong. There can be no other view.

In an ideal world yes, I'd agree - alas we don't live in one and never will; so the point is moot at best.

If we did [live in a ideal world], Neds wouldn't break into houses, would they? Principled idealism doesn't tend to get a look in when some scrote has two knives to the neck of your oppo - as happened to us when we attended an evening out at another couple's house and they then stole both our cars and my Rolex after breaking into the house whilst we were sitting down to dinner.

Originally Posted by chrisch

Violence in defence of your home, life and loved ones is understandable, forgivable even, but still wrong.

Wrong? Maybe on your planet mate - I say again, I'll take reality over idealism any day. Anything else is a wish-list and the stuff of dreamers.

Originally Posted by chrisch

Violence in the pursuit of someone else's property is neither understandable or forgivable......

.....and subject to a fuckin good hiding

Originally Posted by chrisch

The sentances should reflect this. They do not. That this is wrong, I think we all agree.

Chris

Again, Amen to that.

But given the number (and let's face it, one is too many) of poor folks who've been killed in their home during a break-in, I repeat, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6...

[Garf]

I'm still not convinced. I was foolishly arrogant to assume I could deal with the situation. As luck would have it, I did.

However, it could have gone the other way, and then we'd have had a very pissed off burgular carrying a cricket bat. That's not going to end happily, cos then either I'm going to sleep or worse and my family are in deep, deep doo-doo, or I'm going to jail for a wee while.

If people thought they could get away with it, then this sort of scenario becomes more and more likely, and people are going to get hurt or worse. The one positive argument about the current state of affairs is that most people will realistically stay in the room and hope the sod goes away, leaving them with nothing more than an insurance claim to deal with. If people started to get thinking they could get away with it, then burgulars are just going to make sure they are always tooled up just in case, and we're heading down a very violent and unfortunate path.

the more I think about it, the more I think I was stupid.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by PeteM

Well apart from the 30% of the world that we used to rule, most of Africa and the far east, in fact just about everywhere except Europe and South America

"in fact just about everywhere except Europe and South America..."

Sorry, I was forgetting China, Russia, All of the Middle East, the former Sov Bloc nations, Japan, All other Arab/Muslim nations.....come on Peter?

Originally Posted by PeterM

Europe is bound to use Napoleonic systems because that was based on Roman Law which was of course adopted by the Holy Roman Empire and once you have a working system in place it is next to impossible to replace

So Britannia having been part of same said Holy Roman Empire would account for what? We seem to have replaced it quite happily.

[markg]

shoot the b*stards......every last one of them.
(if you haven't got a gun throw the b*stard down the stairs).
if he's in your house at 3 am he's fair game.
no ifs, no buts if he's broken into your home and is a threat to your loved ones he has lost ALL his rights.