Burglars Have Rights Too-More Madness In Uk

[Gingerbreadman]

That just made me sick. Can't go on without saying anything that would not be high road.

**shakes head and walks away**

 

[2Ais4U]

A criminal aressted on the street has some rights, they dont lose them all. A criminal found in my home will lose alot more than their "rights".

 

[2Ais4U]

Also that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, WHAT THE F IS WRONG WITH GOVERNMENTS!

 

[Dravur]

This is a joke... right?

Wow, just when you thought the lib mind could sink so low.....

and look, a new low in moronic thought.

 

[Coolmojo]

This is about the exact same story that ran in our local papers when my state was debating Castle doctrine.

Of course we where talking about not running and shooting back. They're discussing if a person has the right to "tackle" an intruder.

I foresee a time when the brits will be fighting for the right to even be able to ask an intruder to leave LOL.

 

[toivo]

I agree that accused criminals have rights--it's one of the cornerstones of our legal system. But as others have said, the criminal's rights have nothing to do with the victim's right of self-defense: the right to defend oneself against an imminent threat is ABSOLUTE. Law-abiding citizens should never be obliged to trust their physical safety to the good will of the people who are violating and robbing them.

 

[agricola]

I seem to recall that this article is more than two years old and that Tony Blair hasn't been in office for a while. Perhaps your e-mail is slow, or is history repeating itself?

Worth re-emphasising, and emboldening and making it big enough so people read it. I hope those going on about intellectual superiority note how easily they have been duped here.

As a history lesson seems appropriate, this measure was dropped when the CPS released the guidance into these incidents that proved householders were not and did not get prosecuted for defending themselves - as is clear from caselaw.

 

[Calibre44]

Rest assured that there are enough ‘objects’ around my house that will be ‘used’ against a burglar - he won’t be leaving sill standing up. I’ll take my day in court any day over the protection of my wife and daughter.

 

[Heywood Case]

Aside from the age of the article (more like 3 years) many of those posting responses seem not to understand what is going on in this story.

Mr Blair's announcement of a review of the law came three days after the Conservative Party threw its weight behind a new parliamentary attempt to win more rights for householders to protect them from burglars.

This shows that there is widespread dissatisfaction with laws and policies limiting self defense in the home, not that everybody there is a sheep.

Lord Goldsmith's intervention came as Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, dismissed fears that giving homeowners greater freedom when tackling burglars would lead to an "arms race" that would put them in greater danger.

He denied that a change in the law, which currently gives homeowners the right to use "reasonable force" when tackling intruders, would encourage burglars to become more aggressive.

In an interview with The Telegraph, Sir John - who last weekend came out in favour of the Right to Fight Back campaign, launched by this newspaper two months ago - said: "I am convinced that enabling householders to use whatever force is necessary will discourage burglars.

"The fact that a would-be intruder knows a householder can respond without the fear of being prosecuted will undoubtedly deter criminal acts." Sir John, who will step down next month after five years as commissioner, said fellow police officers were confident that it would act as a deterrent.

"We are on the ground," he said. "We smell it, we see it, we hear it. We know what we are talking about."

This is saying that an influential Police Commissioner believed that the law needed to be changed in a way that most here would presumably agree with.

Michael Howard, the Tory leader, yesterday praised this newspaper's campaign. "I pay tribute to the highly effective campaign run over so many months by The Sunday Telegraph. It was the first newspaper to highlight this crucial issue and its persistence has been a key factor in winning this change to the law and in forcing Tony Blair's U-turn," he said. "We now need to ensure that Patrick Mercer's bill gets through parliament. The Sunday Telegraph's continued vigilance will be crucial in ensuring this."

Even a major media outlet seems to be on the same page.

Trying to find out whatever happend to this law, it's clear that this issue is very much alive, as described in this article in the Telegraph (neither Goldsmith nor Stevens are still in those positions, however).

Labour backs down on right to fight burglars

By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 1:38am GMT 20/12/2007

Labour has been accused of making "hollow promises" to prevent home owners being dragged through the courts for using force against burglars.

A review of the law was promised by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, at the party's conference in September.

His speech prompted headlines that householders defending themselves would have greater protection from prosecution.
advertisement

But proposals published last night go no further than the existing law, which already allows people to use reasonable force to defend themselves and others.

The Tories said the measure had been "hyped up" at the conference because Gordon Brown was considering an election, which he abandoned.

The Ministry of Justice acknowledged that amendments tabled to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill were designed to "clarify and reinforce" existing case law.

It is the second time since Labour took office in 1997 that the law has been reviewed and on both occasions it has been left untouched.

Mr Straw said: "Law-abiding citizens should not be put off tackling criminals by fear of excessive investigation. The law should be seen as supporting them from the start.

"In the case of a householder faced with a burglar, we are reassuring them that if they intervene and necessarily use force which is not excessive or disproportionate, the law really is behind them."

But the courts already accept this as a defence. Critics said Mr Straw had failed to address the issue of stopping the prosecution in the first place.

Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, said: "His proposed amendments are merely a re-statement of the law. They provide no greater protection to householders."

The Tories have tabled amendments to the Bill to give householders enhanced protection when using force against an intruder.

They will push for a vote next month, which could embarrass the Government since it seemed to favour such a move.

"Parliament needs to send a clear signal that the law is on the side of home owners," said Mr Herbert.

The amendments make clear that it is a defence for the householder to show he acted instinctively, feared for his safety or that of others and his response was proportionate.

But after a review in 2004, the Crown Prosecution Service issued a clarification that said: "So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon."

Prosecutors say that if these tests are fulfilled, there will not be a charge.

The most notorious case was that of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer, who was jailed for shooting dead Fred Barras, 16, in August 1999.

Martin, who shot Barras as he ran away, had his murder conviction reduced to manslaughter on appeal.