So-called “have-a-go heroes” are to be given greater protection if they stand up to criminals, Justice Secretary Jack Straw says.
The former home secretary, who has himself stepped in to detain suspected criminals on four separate occasions, wants the legal scales tilted more in favour of the good citizen.
He said many good citizens go through anxious and humiliating police investigations, with some ending up in court.
The new law would protect those who use reasonable force, but not those who use excessive violence.
Would such a law make you more willing to intervene against suspected criminals? Would it encourage you to go to the aid of somebody being attacked?
Or do the current laws strike the right balance, as argued by Tony Blair’s administration?
Trackback
9 comments so far
Oh yes, bring it on. I have a baseball bat by the front door in case I get visited by these hoody people. I shall be visiting a litle citizen justice on them just as soon as one of them dares to come in and inspect my gas meter. How do I know they’re not a genuine British Gas person? I guess I won’t for sure, but one shifty look is the only chance they’re getting from me before whamo.
- Posted by Richard WilliamsThe biggest problem with the Self-defence law is that reasonable force is so subjective. Is it reasonable for the burglar to be in my house? so is it reasonable for me to throw him out of my house? Do I have to wait to see the knife or other weapon before I am scared enough to use a weapon myself?
At the end of the day it should be about rights. I should have the right to defend my property and posessions in any way I like. That might just deter burglars from entering in the first place. Infringe the human rights of the burglar? What about my right not to be burgled?
- Posted by Rob CarterAs far as burglary is concerned, I think a person in their own home ought to be able to deal with any intruder in any way that does not involve “wholly disproportionate violence” (or some similar form of words). The current “reasonable force” formula is not good enough, because in these days of guns, knives and crack cocaine, you’ve got to be entitled to “put the man down” in no uncertain fashion without having to worry about details such as whether he is a rather weedy specimen or how hard you should hit him so that you don’t quite kill him.
- Posted by Matthew DuckworthBrown spin rather than Blair spin. This will do the rounds to show that Brown ‘cares’. Then it will get kicked into the long grass when they realise the problems it could cause with human rights legislation.
- Posted by AndrewBConcept of English man’s home as his castle, is long gone. Days of reasonable/disporportionate force have not solved the problems of modern times. Human right laws from Eu are a big obstacle. So this country has to solve the problem in it’s own ways.
- Posted by Sukhdev“… right balance, as argued by Tony Blair’s administration?”
- Posted by nilayIf I was to show up at Mr Blair’s house as a burglar and wave a knife around. I would be shot and it would not count as excessive force. If I hit a burglar on the head with a baseball bat in my own home that would count as excessive force. Excessive force is subjective, it depends on how important you are and how many important people you know.
Perhaps it will end up like self-assessment, we’ll all be doing ’self-policing’ as well as paying for the police in tax!
- Posted by IanWhatever protection the Police have in protection from prosecution we should have too. I mean, they get to kill and get off scotfree, don’t they?
- Posted by Jim FowlerI certainly believe that having more protection, more people would be willing to step up to the mark. You must have the right to protect yourself or another person, using whatever force is necessary.
- Posted by Malcolm Bale - Alberta Self Defense