Unconstituted on Red

Self defence, an alternative solution.

Following my previous article describing the situation on self defence there has been little progress in terms of ideas. The Chief Constable minced his words on radio, and the Tories are accusing Blair of bandwagon jumping. Blair and the Attorney General have two contrasting opinions on the matter and the whole thing has taken a political flavour.

The Chief Constable's proposal was shortsightedly contrary to the current climate. He wants the wording changed from 'reasonable' to 'necessary'. What may be seen as reasonable (blowing out a burglar's kneecap whilst he makes a beeline out the door with the bone china) is not exactly necessary (calling the police). In reality it would be a greater burden on householders.

The grossly dispproportionate force solution would allow 'dispproportionate force'. There's something unconscionable about being unreasonable or dispropportionate, in fact there is no other law in the UK that allows for dispropportionate action, and for obvious reason.

Surely there is a third option. One that quenches the public thirst and allows them to be involved in their own protection. Something that brings the law into their streets, where it can be seen and felt. Something that is reasonable, and proportionate. In civil law homeowners fulfill their duty of care to trespassers when they put up signs warning of the dangers on their property. This relieves them of an action in negligence.


Could it not be said that it's reasonable that if a burglar is thinking, 'if I break into that house I might get ravaged by the guard dogs', and he continues on his course of action that it is reasonable if he then gets ravaged by the guard dogs. Surely all that is needed is the existing law, coupled with a disclaimer warnning of serious injury should there be an attempt to enter under illegal circumstance.

This way, there is no need for ridiculously worded legislation allowing 'disproportionate force'. Although the actions of householders may in practice be similar, with the disclaimer solution, the burden is shifted on the criminal to choose between the profit of his crime, and the consequence if he gets caught in the act.

Afterall, it was the shift from protecting the criminal to protecting the householder that was required and this device firmly, and reasonably puts the ball in the criminal's court.

posted by Wanderlust @ 2:45 PM