A blind eye on self defence
The Tony Martin case showed two things: that the existing law is clear and settled, to lawyers; and that the public neither understand it, or agree with their interpretation of it. For lawyers the criminal law is wrought with reasonableness which is decided in each case on the facts. It seems however that the outcomes of such legal reasoning is proving unpopular, with significant numbers of the public holding the opinion that shooting a burglar when running away from you is good practice. Some kind of common sense moral waiver has emerged with eyes turning to the US state of Oklahoma, where householders are given an unqualified right to use any force, including deadly force.
MP Patrick Mercer is to table a private members bill which will get a second reading and go to vote. The Conservatives are behind it and there seems to be a consensus across the board that something needs to be done. The Home Office have welcomed a new definition as long as it 'bettered and not just changed' the current law. One suggested proposal is to only investigate in extreme situations where there has been 'grossly disproportionate force', this, Mercer says is to,
"...shift the balance so that the fear of imprisonment or physical harm should lie with the intruder, not the householder."
Whether or not such a Bill will get enough votes remains to be seen, but what we are in danger of, if the public aren't satisfied with the political / legal reform should there be one, is driving a strong moral consensus underground. A consensus which when held amongst members of the police could lead to compromised cases and miscarriages of justice. Such views are already being voiced from within the Metropolitan Police by Chief Sir John Stevens,
"My own view is that people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution."
With spreading views like the one expressed above it's not hard to imagine a police force turning a blind eye in obtaining evidence, or in juries applying their discretion objectively at trial.
Dangers however in arbitrary self defence laws like those in Oaklahoma is that we stop being reasonable. Plain uniformed police and old women getting the baseball bat treatment spring to mind, trigger happy countrymen and the sale of brutal anti-theft devices like those sold in South Africa could invariably be of consequence to the law that allows 'disproportionate force'. Supporters are keen to express however that this law wouldn't have made any difference to the Tony Martin outcome which still mighten't appease those still protesting his sentence.
Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer reasons that a new law isn't required, only a better application of existing law. It's hard to see how a law that begs reasonable behaviour can be so condemned; and a law allowing for disproportionate response not unforseeably in contravention of the European Convention of Human Rights is high on the public's priorities.
Alternative opinion can be found at http://www.tonymartinsupportgroup.org/
posted by Wanderlust @ 3:14 PM
![BBCi: Javascript is not available
on this browser](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/bsp/hi/services/htmlsyndication/img/synd_js_error_js-inactive.gif")
.
2 Comments:
i understand the concept of 'reasonable force' fairly well and i thought everyone else would too, but apparently it isnt so.i find myself trying to explain it to my girlfriend sometimes. after all, the onus is on reasonable. if you thief is running away you cant say you are in fear of your life and shoot them.however if you genuinely fear for your life you are permitted to stop them. if the only way at the time is a knife to the heart then so be it. hopefully the law would back you up. so the 'reasonable force' angle should be sufficient. having said that i agree robbers should stop and think 'will i get killed for this' and hopefully it will stop them. i think someone said on my forum once they were advised by a cop to deal with an intruder as hard as you can and worry about the consequences later.
having said all this about reasonable force if i did have an intruder i would certainly break their legs at the very least.
Steven,
I think your posts is a prime example of what is wrong with the world today. We're all emotive creatures bar those labotomised, and are capable of thinking clearly until we become personally involved.
I think few men would disagree with what you said. What we need to do then is make our intentions clear, and I've posted an alternative solution that would make your kneecapping a reasonable act by forewarning the intruder by way of sign before he attempts to enter.
Post a Comment
<< Home