Sunday, 24 January 2010

Why Do Politicians Make The Response To Simple Questions Difficult

Chris Grayling is reported as saying that a Conservative government would change the law regarding householders using self defence in their own home and goes on to say: "I am not sure what the change would be. There are two or three options".

As I have said previously, in my book criminals have no rights because they have - through their actions - abrogated the rights to which they had.
 
Any person committing a criminal act, such as burglary, must suffer the consequences of their actions, to whatever level of consequence that results. It must surely cross their minds that if they were not in the position they had put themselves through their criminal intent, said consequences would not have resulted. Therefore if their activity results in a damn good beating, or even their death, then they only have themselves to blame.


Simples!

5 comments:

James Higham said...

Chris Grayling is one of the better ones but he is severely reined in by the party machine. I had the opportunity to meet him and he'd be better under a freer political system.

Jim said...

While I undertand your point, there are pit falls if you go down that route.

If ANY response is OK to criminality, would that include death? And if it would, how would you know whether the dead person was a criminal? It would make murder a lot easier, just get the victim into your house, kill them, call the cops, claim self defence in burglary, cops take body away, jobs a good 'un.

And does this rule only apply to burglars, or is it across the board? If someone punches me in a pub, am I entitled to kill him? Does any criminality, however small, (littering?) result in you forfeiting your rights?

I have undoubtedly exceeded the speed limit at some point in my life, can I now be shot by any member of the public?

Witterings From Witney said...

Jim,

Methinks you argue to the point of extreme examples. Even our police are capable of proving complicity.

Jim said...

@WFW: Thats what you should do with new proposals, test them theoretically to the point of absurdity and see what the result looks like.

If it were done with more of our laws we might not be in the mess we are now. Take the Terrorism Act - it is ludicrous to have such powerful catch-all clauses, but to say at the point of passing the law 'Don't worry we'll only use it when absolutely necessary' is madness. Experience has taught us that doesn't happen in reality. Ask any number of photographers aressted for snapping some local landmark, or for that matter Walter Wolfgang.

If a proposed law to enable householders to defend themselves against burglars is to have general support, it must be proportionate. It cannot allow you to murder anyone who happens upon your house, even if they are a criminal.

Don't get me wrong, I support a change in the law to back up householders, but I just don't want the current injustices replaced with others - innocent people being beaten to a pulp because the householder 'thought' they were a burglar.

Bear in mid that in the USA every year innocent people are shot dead by householders who claim to have thought they were criminals. That is the logical extension of a no-holds-barred approach to burglars.

Witterings From Witney said...

Jim,

Accept what you say but I come back to the argument I make - if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time committing a criminal act through your own choice then you suffer the consequences.

If that burglar's death is as a consequence of actions to detain him then so be it. I am not saying that a homeowner would go to such an extreme as a first resort.

Yes the subject does need further discussion and clarification but my general principle remains.