|
LETTER FROM LONDON |
 |
|
English law is still ‘a ass,
a idiot’ as Dickens said
By MICHAEL JOHNSON
of TheColumnists.com
In this space some months ago I alluded to Mr. Bumble’s opinion of English Common Law as “a ass, a idiot.” There is real genius in Mr. Dickens’ formulation, a great line among many gems in "Oliver Twist."
With all the alleged improvements in life over the past 150 years, however, one would have expected the law to have gotten smarter.
I am sorry to report that it is not happening. English law continues to display a stunning degree of obtuseness. Consider this: if a burglar breaks into your home in England, would you have the right to harm him in order to protect yourself or your family? Well, maybe, but “not unreasonably,” is the waffly answer.
Nothing I can think of separates the U.S. from Britain quite as deeply as the rights of protection of private property. Everyone knows that U.S. law favors the occupant, sanctioning the blowing away of intruders, even accidental ones.
In Britain, the victim
can go to jail even if he hits back too hard. God forbid he might
kick the poor perp.
More and more, British burglary victims are looking enviously
at the U.S. approach, especially as household crime climbs, all
restrictions on pub opening hours are lifted, and the Labour
Party insists that everything is fine.
The issue exploded last month when Parliamentary proposals to
allow "any means" in the defense of households from
intruders came in at the top of a survey by the BBC asking the
public to speak out for or against a tougher new law.
A spate of violent attacks, including the stabbing of a financier
and a school teacher at their homes in London, stirred a Sunday
newspaper to call for legal reform. Both the outgoing London
Metropolitan police commissioner and his successor supported
the campaign.
But the Home Secretary, who runs the jails, fought off media
and opposition Party pressure for tougher legislation that would
have allowed self-defense against intruders because, he believes,
householders and their families and property are perfectly well
protected.
"I have concluded that the current law is sound," he
said, and issued a new pamphlet reminding victims to moderate
their defenses. The force applied must be “reasonable,”
says the pamphlet, and can only be used “in the heat of
the moment.”
Oh, to be a criminal lawyer in this land of legal goop and glop. The earnings must be fabulous.
British television discussion shows have been dominated by heated exchanges over how to be reasonable when a career criminal wakes you up by tripping over your sofa. Should you cry out, “I say old chap, easy on the furniture”? Or should you grab your cricket bat and brandish it from a safe distance?
One government official tried to explain how the law is supposed to work. You can hit a burglar on the legs with a blunt object, he said, but not on the head, and you can wrestle him to the ground but you cannot kick him senseless--unless it happens “in the heat of the moment.”
The pamphlet has become
the object of scorn. One burglary victim told a reporter he read
it and sent it straight to the “gravity file.”
In fact, many argue that the law goes out of its way to protect
the perpetrators.
Tony Martin (not the singer), owner of Bleak House (not the novel) in the country of Norfolk found this out to his cost. He shot at a couple of vandals looking for something to steal from his farm house. One was killed, the other wounded, and Martin went to jail for two years. He is out on bail now, but the surviving burglar is considered the victim and has the right to be informed of Martin’s whereabouts--in case Martin should try again to defend himself.
Another case involved a 72-year-old retired detective chief inspector who detained an intruder in his back yard, hanging on to the man’s wriggling wrist until the police arrived. The man complained, and the former detective was charged with assault. The case was eventually dropped but not before the retiree experienced the expense and frustration of dealing with asses and idiots.
A grocery shop owner in the town of Hull finally got fed up being assaulted by thugs and thieves, and armed himself with an axe handle and a pool cue. At the next intrusion he managed a smart crack on the head of one man, knocking him unconscious. He was charged with “affray,” officially defined as “group fighting in a public place that disturbs the peace”
The trial dragged on for two days before the ludicrous charges were dismissed. The shop owner tried to see the logic of it all. “When the police told me that they would have to charge me, they were very apologetic about it,” he told a reporter. He was making a great effort to be “reasonable.”
American law is based on English Common Law, one of the great legacies of fairness and justice surviving from past centuries. But how can one fail to be saddened by misapplication of principles that no longer fit the modern world? It is hard to imagine that this concept of property protection ever made sense.
©2005 by Michael Johnson.
The illustration is from IMSI's Master Clips Collection, 1895
Francisco Blvd. E., San Rafael, CA, 94901-5506, USA. This column
was first posted on Jan. 21, 2005.
You
can comment on this column online. Please address your message
to either "The Editors" or Michael Johnson. To send
an email, click here: talkback@thecolumnists.com
|
|
|
Archives |
|
|