This link was emailed to me today. All I can say is... I wish things were different. It scares me that someone can come into my house and I can end up in jail.
http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=4378
Preserving our right to defend: Courts in England and Canada are giving protection to the criminal elements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick now: Which two countries have the highest crime rates in Europe
and North America? Russia? Turkey? The United States?
The answer is England and Canada. In a recent report by the British Home
Office, England had the worst score among 35 countries, with a crime
rate nearly triple some of its neighbours. Law-abiding Canada came in
second.
While these rankings hold up across most categories, one area stands
out: Both countries have shocking levels of domestic burglary. Canada's
rate is more than twice that of many European countries.
Worse still, the frequency of "hot" break-ins -- where the occupants are
at home when the thieves arrive -- is much higher in Canada and the "old
country" than elsewhere.
In England, nearly two-thirds of burglaries are of the "hot" variety,
and in Canada, nearly half. By comparison, the figure is only 13 per
cent in the U.S.
While burglary is often discounted as a mere "property crime," its
impact can be devastating.
Many victims are traumatized far beyond the impact of lost or damaged
property. Sometimes the trauma is physical: A study in Toronto showed
almost half the "hot" break-ins involved a confrontation.
The causes of criminal behaviour are no doubt complex. However, recent
changes in legal thinking about some long-held beliefs may be partly
responsible.
Traditionally, common law placed the right to defend oneself, along with
sanctity of the home, above all other considerations.
Preservation of the self was seen as a virtually unqualified right,
while it was understood that our safekeeping, at the most basic level,
rests on the security of our home.
It appears now that legal authorities in Canada and Britain are
increasingly uncomfortable with these notions. Several recent court
decisions in both countries suggest a shift in doctrine.
One night in August 1999, Tony Martin heard burglars break into his
farmhouse in the south of England. Martin's home had been burglarized
several times, and he went downstairs armed with a shotgun.
In the dark, one of the burglars shone a flashlight in his face. Martin
fired, hitting two men and killing one of them.
In a case that polarized the country, prosecutors argued Martin could
not claim the right of self defence, because he used more force than
necessary.
He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. (In the
ensuing uproar, his sentence was subsequently reduced.)
Last year in Edmonton, thieves crashed an SUV through a shop window late
at night. The owner, who also lived there, drove them off with a .22
rifle, wounding one in the shoulder.
Charges of aggravated assault and intent to endanger life were laid
against the owner, along with several lesser offences. Although some of
the charges were eventually dropped, he was fined and banned from owning
a gun for 10 years.
It's unlikely either of these men would have been prosecuted 50 years
ago. Each woke to find burglars on the premises, and had reason to feel
threatened.
In both cases, however, prosecutors raised the bar. While they
acknowledged the men feared for their safety, they argued this was not
sufficient to warrant their actions.
Similarly, though in both cases thieves entered a domestic residence,
that was not held to justify the degree of force used.
These cases are by no means an exception. By some estimates, victims of
burglary and home invasion in Canada who use violent force to defend
themselves are now almost as likely to be prosecuted as their attackers.
Perhaps some of this stems from a desire to discourage gun-related
incidents, though statistics show no significant increase over the last
half-century. Moreover, since defensive weapons like mace or pepper
spray are already banned, you might reasonably wonder what kind of force
is permitted.
It appears more radical thinking lies at the root of these changes.
Some in the legal community believe that in an ideal world, only civil
authorities should be authorized to employ force.
They trace much that is wrong with contemporary society to individuals
taking matters into their own hands. Such an argument resonates
powerfully in Britain, still in the shadow of two world wars.
If this reduces somewhat the right of personal self defence, the
argument goes, that is a price worth paying. If it requires burglary
victims to offer no more than passive resistance, well, damage to
property can never excuse loss of life.
Unfortunately, that brings us back to burglary statistics and to human
nature. It may be these changes in legal doctrine were just what the
thieves were waiting for.
http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=4378
Preserving our right to defend: Courts in England and Canada are giving protection to the criminal elements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick now: Which two countries have the highest crime rates in Europe
and North America? Russia? Turkey? The United States?
The answer is England and Canada. In a recent report by the British Home
Office, England had the worst score among 35 countries, with a crime
rate nearly triple some of its neighbours. Law-abiding Canada came in
second.
While these rankings hold up across most categories, one area stands
out: Both countries have shocking levels of domestic burglary. Canada's
rate is more than twice that of many European countries.
Worse still, the frequency of "hot" break-ins -- where the occupants are
at home when the thieves arrive -- is much higher in Canada and the "old
country" than elsewhere.
In England, nearly two-thirds of burglaries are of the "hot" variety,
and in Canada, nearly half. By comparison, the figure is only 13 per
cent in the U.S.
While burglary is often discounted as a mere "property crime," its
impact can be devastating.
Many victims are traumatized far beyond the impact of lost or damaged
property. Sometimes the trauma is physical: A study in Toronto showed
almost half the "hot" break-ins involved a confrontation.
The causes of criminal behaviour are no doubt complex. However, recent
changes in legal thinking about some long-held beliefs may be partly
responsible.
Traditionally, common law placed the right to defend oneself, along with
sanctity of the home, above all other considerations.
Preservation of the self was seen as a virtually unqualified right,
while it was understood that our safekeeping, at the most basic level,
rests on the security of our home.
It appears now that legal authorities in Canada and Britain are
increasingly uncomfortable with these notions. Several recent court
decisions in both countries suggest a shift in doctrine.
One night in August 1999, Tony Martin heard burglars break into his
farmhouse in the south of England. Martin's home had been burglarized
several times, and he went downstairs armed with a shotgun.
In the dark, one of the burglars shone a flashlight in his face. Martin
fired, hitting two men and killing one of them.
In a case that polarized the country, prosecutors argued Martin could
not claim the right of self defence, because he used more force than
necessary.
He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. (In the
ensuing uproar, his sentence was subsequently reduced.)
Last year in Edmonton, thieves crashed an SUV through a shop window late
at night. The owner, who also lived there, drove them off with a .22
rifle, wounding one in the shoulder.
Charges of aggravated assault and intent to endanger life were laid
against the owner, along with several lesser offences. Although some of
the charges were eventually dropped, he was fined and banned from owning
a gun for 10 years.
It's unlikely either of these men would have been prosecuted 50 years
ago. Each woke to find burglars on the premises, and had reason to feel
threatened.
In both cases, however, prosecutors raised the bar. While they
acknowledged the men feared for their safety, they argued this was not
sufficient to warrant their actions.
Similarly, though in both cases thieves entered a domestic residence,
that was not held to justify the degree of force used.
These cases are by no means an exception. By some estimates, victims of
burglary and home invasion in Canada who use violent force to defend
themselves are now almost as likely to be prosecuted as their attackers.
Perhaps some of this stems from a desire to discourage gun-related
incidents, though statistics show no significant increase over the last
half-century. Moreover, since defensive weapons like mace or pepper
spray are already banned, you might reasonably wonder what kind of force
is permitted.
It appears more radical thinking lies at the root of these changes.
Some in the legal community believe that in an ideal world, only civil
authorities should be authorized to employ force.
They trace much that is wrong with contemporary society to individuals
taking matters into their own hands. Such an argument resonates
powerfully in Britain, still in the shadow of two world wars.
If this reduces somewhat the right of personal self defence, the
argument goes, that is a price worth paying. If it requires burglary
victims to offer no more than passive resistance, well, damage to
property can never excuse loss of life.
Unfortunately, that brings us back to burglary statistics and to human
nature. It may be these changes in legal doctrine were just what the
thieves were waiting for.
