So, looking at this story today - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587
I'm very much in 2 minds over this one. The current law states we can use 'reasonable' force to defend ourselves and our homes, therefore changing the law will be a move from reasonable to un-reasonable. Many people will argue that stabbing someone is reasonable, well if that's the case then it's already legal as the law states you can use 'reasonable' force. However, it appears that the courts disagree that stabbing is 'reasonable' and as they are the one's that set the interpretations of the law then they are right, therefore changing it so they are wrong is to change it so that we can use 'un-reasonable' force.
On the other hand, if some little scrote breaks into my house and threatens me or mine then I would want to use any force needed to remove them from my house and the threat, up to and including deadly force.
So I guess this one is a tricky one, personally I would say that we change the law to state that there is a difference in defending one's property and family in your own home, but that this does not extend outside the walls of our homes.
There was a case recently where a man chased an intruder down the street with a cricket bat, that's too much but using a cricket bat to get an intruder out of your house, that should be OK.
Self defence is a hard one. Its easy to dismiss violence as wrong, harder to provide a defence for those who agree, but are faced with someone who's happy to break that rule.
ReplyDeleteRecently (and in more than just the daily mail) there has been a effort made to prove that criminals have rights, too. The backlash to this is the perception that they have more rights than their victims... which makes people afraid to defend themselves against attack for fear of being spun against the aggressor.
There needs to be a balance, but we're one side of it now so I support being pushed towards self-defence being okay.
There are limits, though... grab a weapon to drive the man off (using it as necessary) is good. Shooting a man in the gut and standing by while he dies is still wrong.
Hard decisions from so far away.
Exactly Athos!
ReplyDeleteSome would say that by deciding to break the law, the criminal should have no rights what so ever. But then the universal declaration of human rights for instance, should be UNIVERSAL and some rights can never be lost.
It's a tough one to call.