Intrusion confusion

As an issue of both legal and moral importance, it is surprising that the status of burglary victims who have fought back against their intruders has never been truly put to rest. Instead, the debate over whether such people should be charged or congratulated is one that is continually cropping up amongst the national press and in court rooms across the world. It seems an issue that the public can never quite sort out, with every few years the debate rising back into the public zeitgeist. As always, the more right wing among us begin foaming at the mouth about how ‘burglars should get what they deserve’, while the day-dreaming liberals cry back that ‘they have rights too!’

The problem is that the issue is more complex than many of us take into consideration. So instead we sit back and let our opinions be moulded by soundbite-spurting politicians or some over-opinionated commentator who takes little regard of the nuances or particular details of each case. The polarisation gets so bad that you wonder if some people are actually listening to themselves; one man on the radio station LBC went as far as claiming that his own property was more important than a human life.

It is, of course, easy to see why we get into such a mess. In one corner of the metaphoric boxing ring are the concerns that in our current welfare conscious society, we are getting too preoccupied with rights to give culprits any form of proper punishment. We take pity on the beaten up burglar and we blame the victims defending their property. In the other corner, we get worried that we don’t want to open the flood gates for people to do whatever they like when someone steps onto their land. We’re scared of creating a world in which people have all manner of weapons ready to inflict maximum damage on anyone who might break in.

Two incidences that occurred this summer show the problem well. Although they were in two separate countries and ended in very different ways, the similarities of both cases were somewhat startling. The first happened in the UK and concerned a couple who had fired at a burglar with a legally owned shotgun, seriously injuring him. The burglar had asked the court for leniency in his sentencing, claiming that the injury he suffered from their attack should be taken into consideration. The judge ruled that such a claim was absurd, saying that if you burgle someone’s house you take the risk you may be attacked.

For many, the judge’s ruling was a refreshing change to the usual clemency shown, MP Alan Duncan calling for ‘three cheers for the judge’. Yet, with the judge’s decision came those who believed the law should be changed to give homeowners more rights of defence, and that is where we enter murky ground.

The second incident, which happened in less than a month after the first, shows why. This time, the episode happened in America and involved the tragic mistake of a father who shot his son dead as he thought he was an intruder. The son, who had been wearing a ski mask, was thought to be attempting to break into his aunt’s home next door when his father approached him and killed him.

The similarity of the two examples is hard to deny. Both shooters used legally owned weapons, fired without warning (although there was some provocation in both) and were defending their property. Yet, the outcome of each couldn’t have been more different. The first is seen as the victory of the victim over his assailant, while the other is a horrific and unimaginable tragedy.

These two examples should teach us something important: that when it comes to this problem, we must be willing to listen to the details. We must be willing to listen to victims of theft who choose to defend themselves, but we should not encourage a culture of retribution by writing into law that defenders can do whatever they wish. I do not blame the American father for killing his son, nor do I think he should be charged. But his case reveals that the outcome of attacking a burglar will never be simple or clear-cut, and for that reason we should think more before we speak.

Currently, the law allows for such discretion. It claims a ‘reasonable’ amount of force can be used to expel a burglar. Many people wonder what ‘reasonable’ means, and yet, perhaps we should leave the definition unclear. With a jury allowed to come to their own conclusion of what ‘reasonable’ means, the law allows for protection of defenders without encouraging them to attack all that may enter their house. Leaving a legal grey area benefits the system and all parties involved, including both the victims and culprits of the burglary. It would be wise to remember that when another inevitable example arises.