Tories go back to basics on burglars | Politics | The Guardian

Tories go back to basics on burglars | Politics | The Guardian
Of all the recent policy announcements, there are few that can be as primitive or populist than the latest 'batter a burglar' (as the Sun put it) policy from the UK Conservatives.

Currently householders are allowed use  'proportionate' force, but now the Tories are pushing for (literally) 'disproportionate' force to be acceptable as well. The very language itself highlights the lack of logic - if the law is there in general to prescribe suitable, i.e. proportionate actions and reactions, how can it be validly used to justify unsuitable actions as well?

Of course the standard argument is that people confronted by a burglar are afraid to react with force at all, in case they are later judged to have overreacted, but since there are presumably still some limits as to what can be meted out to an intruder (I think the phrase will be 'grossly disproportionate') then surely the same abiguity remains, just shifted to the more violent end of the spectrum. And in fact the consequences for homeowners could be then much worse, since if they overdoing a severe beating is always going to be a more serious offence (with risk of death, permanent injury) than overdoing a minor one. And of course if burglars can expect to be attacked, then they will be prepared for it, either by bringing weapons, attacking the homeowner first, and being more vicious when they do so.

And what all of this misses is the moral argument. If a homeowner can use (again literally) excessive force, then it moves from the realm of defence and prevention and into punishment and vengeance. Is it then a fair punishment for the crime of trying to steal an xbox to be severely beaten or injured? Or killed? Surely it is this reasoning that is behind non-US prohibitions on a free for all against home invaders - a realization that having your house robbed while upsetting, annoying and possibily in some way traumatizing, is still in the great scheme of things not the worst of crimes, and hence to be treated reasonably by the courts, and not be dependent on the inflamed passions of a scared homeowner?

Of course it would be nice to think that the mere deterrent would put burglars off, but the sad fact is that most are probably driven by situation or addiction to resort to it, and are not going to make such a rational decision. To see this is the case, one only needs to look at the US, where death sentences and gun toting homeowners don't seem to have resulted in some calm paradise where break ins and robberies have been eradicated. As somone who shouldn't have been famous might have said 'how's that shooty fry-ey thing working out for y'all?'