Self-defence: a case of proportionality

It is contentious to argue that when an intruder enters private property, they forgoe their rights and are at the wrath of the owners - this is essentially what the Tories propose. The Conservative Party want to stretch existing legislation to give householders more power in the event of a burglary. This is wholly unreasonable and unecessary.

The status quo is sufficient. It recognises that householders have a right to self-defence and are likely to act violently in the heat of the moment. It recognises that householders have an inalienable right to protect their property, family and themselves. The case of the Hussein brothers, who were shown "mercy" by the jury, attests this.

It is pertinent to stress the notion of proportionality. When tackling a criminal, it is permissible to use physically hurt him to defuse the situation. However, it is then unjustified if the householder then proceeds to kick him in the head twenty times. The law currently recognises this difference. Yet the Tories still want to effectively grant householders a 'licence to kill burglars.' This encourages vigilantist behaviour. People must not take the law into their own hands - that is the role of the courts.

Furthermore, giving householders the right to use disproportionate force against a burglar is counterproductive. More burglars will feel the need to carry extreme weaponry. In the USA, as citizens have the right to keep handguns in their house, criminals, who otherwise may not, must do the same. The same principle applies to this case.

Householders must have the right to proportionate self-defence, but the law already caters to this. However, they do not have the right to take the law into their own hands.