UKC

Am I normal? I'm sure some UKC'ers would think I'm subnormal when they read what I've put below.

However, we got burgled last night and they even came into the same room where me, Mrs. Ent and Little Ent were sleeping.
If a genie jumped out of a bottle and said Enty what fate would you like for the burglar? I'd say wrap him in duct tape, put him on the floor in front of me and give me a blow torch - I really do stand by this - I honestly would do it!

If anyone says wait until you've calmed down a bit. If I could find him, I'd do the same to the guy who robbed my car in 1995.

What should we do with these scrotes? I remeber the US doing 3 strikes then life. I'f happily pay more tax to have massive prisons full of lifers. 15 years for breaking into someones house would be a deterrent I'm sure.

(Please - I don't care what upbringing they had.)

Cheers,

E

In reply to Enty: I think you have the same view on law and order as me! I would have brought back the death penalty for the f*cker that nicked my car, so for breaking into my house torture would have to be the next step...

In reply to Enty:

I'd say you're probably normal but somewhat narrow minded: i.e. not able to see things from other points of view too well.

In reply to stp:

Explain?

E

In reply to Enty: I'm with Enty on this one, there is no other point of view regarding someone who breaks into your house at night whilst you are asleep.

As far as I am concerned it is what the pick on my ice axe is for.

In reply to Enty:

You can't put yourself in the place of those that broke in. The only way you can explain it is to look at those people as evil or something who thus deserved to be tortured.

I can completely understand why you might feel like that. I would too probably. Then I try to remind myself that if my life had worked out differently I could easily be the one doing the crime.

Kinda like religion. Sometimes I wonder how on earth any can believe in God and all that nonsense. I think like that quite often. Yet rationally I'm sure if was brought up in Saudi Arabia I'd almost certainly be a Muslim.

I think we all do this to some degree or other. I know I do. Which is why I say you're normal.

In reply to Enty:

3 strikes and then hang/lethal injection/behead them.

The law only works as a deterrent to those with something to lose i.e job/house/family etc.

In reply to Enty:

I'm not overly for the death penalty for anything other than murder but I am of the opinion that just being in prison is not good enough. Prisoners should be doing hard labour.. chain gangs are a good example - the prisoners are made to work and suffer a little bit of humiliation. I would like to see lifers out on landfill sites sorting through the crap this society had thrown, sorting all recyclable stuff from degradable. (and yes I am well aware of how harsh an environment a landfill site is).
Any minute now some goodie goodie will be along to tell us what awful people we are for even thinking such things and how we are no better than the criminal and how we should mollycoddle the offenders as they are obviously hard up etc etc.

In reply to Radioactiveman:


That's exactly right.

In reply to stp: That other point of view being that the burglars maybe had a hard life, tough childhood etc, short of money etc, so robbing someone else is a mitigating circumstance?

There are so many people who fall into that category, who don't go round robbing people!

In reply to Enty:

This thread reads like the letters page of the Daily Mail.

In reply to Enty:

I haven't had that experienced, so I don't have the 'hang the f^cker' feeling that goes with it.

The way I see it is that I'm really privileged, my parents brought me up with loads of books and visits to the Dales, and the Science Museum (they weren't rich but they were middle class and valued education and stimulation above all else for their kids); I've had one professional career and I didn't like that enough so now I'm back at university again to train for another one. I own my own place (not for much longer but eh) blah blah.

As much as someone who has had a sh!t life compared to mine has got no right, and no excuse, to behave like a piece of sh!t and break into people's houses or mug people on the street, I'm not prepared to write people off as deserving torture/death etc when it's so easy for me to be 'a nice guy' when it might be equally easy for someone else who's been dealt a different hand to be 'a bad guy'. If, for example, my mum was a crack whore and my dad was nowhere to be seen, perhaps I would be doing all sorts of nasty sh!t too. So, yep, there's got to be punishment, but I'm definitely not in favour of me, Mr Privilege, kicking the sh!t out of some guy who has never had even 1% of the opportunities I've had by chance (who is still a f^cker). Of course they might have had it easy too, but its less likely

Not asking you to agree - but that's how I see it.

In reply to Jon Stewart: Good post - and important to distinguish between the feelings you havevwhen you're the victim like Craig, and those of us who've not been affected by crime. Which I guess is why the criminal justice system is not administered by the victims.

In reply to mack: I can see where you are coming from there, but when you think about it what would happen to the people who are employed to work in these environment? Would you make them unemployed? This would mean they would need to claim benefits (the tax payer’s money) would you be prepared to pay more tax to offset this extra cost???

In reply to Goucho:


Yeah but I think it's far more individual than simply class. Stuff like who you happen to meet, make friends with, other life experiences and even your genes (not suggesting evil genes here but I suspect some people are naturally far too timid to become house burglers)

In reply to Chris Ridgers:

oh no, wouldn't want working folk put out. Landfill sites are mainly filled with societies garbage using giant tonka toys and left alone. People don't go out onto the actual sites as far as I'm aware due to the harsh environment. If prisoners spent a day or two a week sifting out recyclables then land fills might not become so vast and spreading.

In reply to Enty: If you want a serious answer and good explanation of why the rule of law is so important (and why it means your daughter is nowadays more likely to reach a ripe old age without being raped or murdered than ever before) then a book you should read would be better Angels of Our Nature, by Stephen Pinker.

If you want to rant about how 'ard you are, then you carry on.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Good post.

But there was a level of intelligence in what they did last night. Good planning etc.

Intelligence that could earn a good wage.

Where's the f*cking blowtorch?

E

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I don't understand what you mean.

E

In reply to Enty:

I assume you consider yourself a better person than your visitor.

Would you still consider yourself a better person after your session with a blow torch?

In reply to Jon Stewart:
I was trying to work up the energy to be articulate on a Friday night but you just said it for me. I agree with all you say, and also with the poster that mentioned that jurisdiction is better not left in the hands of victims.

In reply to Enty: I think you need a little perspective; you, your wife & your daughter are all ok, ultimately you lost a few possessions. Should the people responsible be punished,?of course. Should the punishment be more severe than those currently handed out? without doubt. Should we torture and maim people? Really.
& before you accuse me of being some sort of liberal I am TOTALLY in favour of the death penalty and with more reason than most. But as a society we put far far too much value on material things.

In reply to Jon Stewart: Is there a crime someone could commit that would lead you to write them off? Is anything excusable?

In reply to The New NickB:

Yes.

Tell us about the last time people were in your bedroom when you and Mrs. NickB were asleep.

E

In reply to Jon Stewart:


there was an interesting article in the Guardian a few days back about the texas prison system

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/30/robert-francis-texas-judge-jail...

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That's a fantastic question.

Going into someone's bedroom when their 6 year old daughter is sleeping. That's good enough for me.

E

In reply to Enty:

Interesting response.

In reply to Enty: My sincere condolences to you and your family Enty.
That must have been a horrible experience.
I feel lucky to have never had my sense of domestic security so violated.

I don't know what the answer is (I suspect there isn't one except to say that these things happen more in hard times and in times of greater inequality) but my thoughts go out to you and yours.

Hope you are OK

In reply to Enty:
Notice how every reply from a Guardianista type comes with a free 'moral lecture'?
In the meantime, can I suggest you get a big, loud, barky type dog?!

In reply to thegoatstroker:

Hey thanks!
It's strange but the thing that is making me feel pretty laid back about the whole thing is the fact that another family this week had their 5 year old daughter pinched.
Makes our laptop, Nikon camera and Mrs. Ent's handbag seem pretty insignificant.

E

In reply to Enty:

Hopefully he / she / they, will be caught,and you can all be involved in the restorative justice system.

You might all end up being friends.

In reply to Jonny Rotten:

Yeah that's a good one - do they come round and apologise or summat? Makes it all ok lol.

E

In reply to Enty:

Sorry to hear about your break-in. If it was me and my family I have a fair idea of how i'd react! However, I dont believe in the death penalty- for anyone. I await the neo-cons happy response...

Anyway, what's maybe interesting here, aswell as the perpetrators of such crimes, is the legal system and happy advocates who tell these punters (or p****s) to plead NOT GUILTY until the day of trial where they are then "advised" to plead "GUILTY". The resultant delays net the happy defence advocate and chums a healthy paycheck. Interesting legal system we have...

It's not the worst in the world but certainly a money spinner for lots of legal professionals. Perhaps it needs a few changes

In reply to Enty: Sorry to hear about this Enty.

I know if it was me, it would be the violation of the place where my loved one's are sleeping at the same time, not the theft of the goods themselves, which would anger and upset me.

In reply to Enty:

...just re-read my post there. I wasn't refering to you as a Neo-con by the way Enty. Sorry if it came across that way

Jon

In reply to Jon Wylie:

For a start a rigid enforcement of the rule that for maximum discount on sentence (which is 1/3) the first opportunity to plead guilty is on charge at the police station - and that pleading guilty at the door of the court really does incur only a 1/10 discount rather than the 1/4 to 1/5 that is regularly seen.

In reply to off-duty:

How much cash does the advocate incur in the interim?

In reply to Jon Wylie:

Their look of satisfaction when they get a defendant listed for a 5 day trial to plead guilty on Monday, leaving the week free for golf or more trials is quite impressive. Sometimes they even buy you a drink

In reply to off-duty:

Would that be an issue if the sentence for entering someone's bedroom in the middle of the night was 15 years?

E

In reply to Goucho:

This is very much the point, I've been burgled when not there, even though they would have seen the kid's toys in the back garden. Friends of mine have been done whilst asleep with their kids but the burglars didn't go upstairs (that they know of). But entering rooms where there are sleeping children is despicable.

I'd like to see a sliding scale, where crimes against the person (which this is) are punished much more harshly if the person is a child. So if you break and enter, and even unknown to you, you walk into a room where there are children it's 10 years, rather than just a few months as if it were a 'normal' burglary.

In reply to winhill: (It isn't a crime against the person)

In reply to Enty:

I think so. I'd rather go down for 10 than risk the full 15.

The knock-on effect of the 15 year sentence would of course mean that for 15 years I wouldn't be burgling anymore houses. Though this effect appears to be irrelevant, despite the fact that spikes in burglary are routinely seen when certain suspects are released from custody (until they are caught again)

In reply to Enty:
Really sorry to hear about what happened to you. I think you should be able to do whatever you want if you catch a burglar while he or she is on your territory.
I also think that sentences have to be harsh to put off burglars who are caught from doing the same thing again. If they do it again after being caught then whatever sentence they received before was inadequate.

In reply to Enty:

Oh and a PS - My sympathies to you and your family.

Odious b@st@rds. The only bright side is that none of your family got hurt.

In reply to dek:

Address your comment to someone specific, and say what your problem is what they've said, or if you don't know, maybe it's best just to not bother posting something that sounds kind of ranty, but doesn't really mean anything?

Was that addressed to me? I don't know. What about what I'd posted did you interpret as a moral lecture, if that was aimed at me? I don't know.

If you don't agree with someone, maybe say what the hell you're on about in specific terms that they can respond to. Or otherwise, all we know is that you don't like something (what?) that someone (who?) has said. Great contribution, ta.

In reply to verygneiss:

Well said. Very disturbing to read. People aren't talking punishment here, or even justice. They are talking REVENGE.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

What I said was that I wouldn't write off the (generalised, but nasty/maybe violent) criminal as deserving death or torture. I'd stand by that no matter how horrific the crime, because a policy that legitimises killing and/or torture by the state (or anyone) I think has bad, bad consequences. Take, say, a hundred years in the hypothetical history of anywhere with the death penalty: an innocent person will be murdered by the state. Collateral damage?

Is anything excusable? No - nothing gets excused. If someone's committed a couple of robberies, might they be rehabilitated? Yes. If someone's killed a load of children, it's utterly unconvincing that they could be ever rehabilitated and live any sort of life of any use. They should spend the rest of their life in jail, at the minimum possible cost to the taxpayer. They should probably be offered a convenient way to top themselves, it would save resources if they took up the offer.

In reply to Skip:

What's wrong with a bit of revenge?

In reply to Skip:

What's wrong with that?

E

In reply to Enty: Very very glad your family are okay, there are no excuses for the people who did this.
I am glad you did not wake up and disturb them because I find it hard to believe that someone who would risk entering an occupied room would not be armed in some fashion.
All theft is bad but entering a persons home whilst they are in is so far removed from robbing a factory or taking a car that the guilty party should have all rights revoked for the rest of their short life.

In reply to Enty: It's entirely normal to wish ill on those who have done you harm.

It is also entirely sensible not to act on those feelings.
What you are describing is anarchy. We have law to give justice to those wronged and a measured punishment to those who have offended.


Put simply, if we allowed your wishes....... if you want to be safe you really need to make sure you're the toughest on the block because if you wrong someone and they take your stance, what do you think your chances are?

I think the law and the police protect us adequately. Unfortunately, sometimes people such as yourself suffer what is probably the worst invasion of space possible, a burglary while in your home.


But as someone famous said, an eye for an eye just leaves a lot of blind people.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:


Gandhi - "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

correct

In reply to Enty:
If it happened to me I might feel the same. Burglary is really personal crime for the victim.

I'd happily pay more tax to have prisons full of education, training, work experience, counselling, touchy feely drama classes or even luxury cells and caviar on demand ***IF*** it was shown that the re-offending rate was lower.

It really annoys me politicians ranting about making prisons more harsh rather than making prison more effective.

In reply to elsewhere:

Spot on.

In reply to Skip:

Didn't he mean - "It's very hard to burgle houses if you're blind"

In reply to Enty:
To be clear, anarchy and an eye for an eye will lead to an INCREASE in crime and violence, not a decrease. What you're talking about is revenge, not punishment.

In reply to The New NickB: You also wonder where to stop? If Enty was ever involved in a car accident where (lets say he was a bit over the speed limit and hence it was 'his fault') and someone gets hurt badly, does he deserve the blow torch? What about the guy in the car who charges through the Zebra crossing just in front of me and my kids? Surely I should at least get a cigar cutter and a couple of his least important fingers to make sure he remembers not to do it again?

In reply to Enty:


You end up with a society that is as messed up as those where "honour" crimes are normal.

Of course everyone wants to take revenge when someone they love is a victim of crime, that's natural, but it's also exactly why we let the justice system deal with it instead.

In reply to TobyA:

But the justice system doesn't work because we still have burglars and robbers.

15 years for breaking into a house means that's 15 years where the scrote can't do any more houses - it's simple.

E

In reply to Enty:


It's understandable to be angry but if you really would do as you say then you probably have more in common with the criminals than you think.

In reply to Enty: And people still drive through zebra crossings, so how many fingers do we take?

Where I live, burglary is very, very rare. In fact in recent years the only notable burglaries have been done by 'pro' gangs coming from other countries. So what do you take from that, because prison sentences are shorter and more rarely given than in the UK (and maybe France as well? Don't know). Maybe less people should be sent to prison and for shorter times.*

*That last comment was facetious, pointing out that simply locking people up doesn't work - look at the disaster that is the US prison system.

In reply to TobyA:

Ok lets not talk about blowtorches and removing fingers.

I disagree on the other point though - prison must work.

Burglar A commits 300 burglaries in 15 years because he only ever got caught twice and did 6 months inside.
Burglar B commits 50 burglaries in 15 years because he spent 12 of the 15 years inside after getting caught twice.

What's hard to understand?

If someone jumps a zebra crossing and kills you that would be death by dangerous driving - I'd give the full ten years - unfortunately the UK courts rarely give the full whack.

E

In reply to TobyA:

I agree that some of the Scandinavian countries have enviable records of low crime and seemingly low levels of criminality.
Maybe what we need is an armed police force...

In reply to Enty:
Sadly every prison system you can imagine has already been tried in this country, and none of them seem to work. Victorian prisons were hellholes of despair and death, with plenty of hard labour to go around, and yet crime levels were much higher than today.

In reply to Enty:


Prison regimes are very marginal to levels of crime in society. Why is there virtually no burglary in Finland? It very definitely isn't because the burglars are all in prison. It because there aren't many people who commit burglary, and fear of punishment doesn't account for that.

In three strikes states in the US you can get life for, famously, stealing a slice of pizza. Has that made Californian free of petty crime? Of course not. Have a read of (on the US) http://www.economist.com/node/13415267

"As well as being brutal, prisons are ineffective. They may keep offenders off the streets, but they fail to discourage them from offending. Two-thirds of ex-prisoners are re-arrested within three years of being released. The punishment extends to prisoners' families, too. America's 1.7m “prison orphans” are six times more likely than their peers to end up in prison themselves."

In reply to off-duty:


Colder winters? Triple glazing on windows? Higher rates of tertiary education? More boring diets? Public cross country ski tracks? No tabloid media culture? Surely one of these things must account for it!

Actually, I don't know about Nor and Swe, but murder is much more common in Finland than it is in the UK, if I remember correctly per capita twice as many Finns get murders as Brits.

In reply to TobyA:


I remember that case well because people always use it against the three strikes argument - he was convicted on the 4th try for stealing a pizza. His first three offences were robbery, armed robbery and drug dealing.

E

In reply to TobyA:

Exactly, seems to me that crime stats are impossible to link to their causes - it's an intractable problem without sufficient data. I doubt anyone will run a randomised control trial where two similar populations are policed in different ways to see which works best (isn't that right, James Oswald?). Until then, we'll just have the daft charade in which ministers claim responsibility for 'good' stats by linking them to their policies, and explain away 'bad' stats with other causes.

Misusing stats to try to provide evidence for a view you already hold is one of those things that gets on my tits. I was a civil servant for 10 years, it was pretty annoying.

So anyone who claims to know what sort of policing or justice system would bring crime down in the UK has a self-inflated idea of what they know and understand - just look at politicians.

In reply to Enty:

High taxes to fund a comprehensive social welfare system would remove much of the need for people to turn to crime.

In reply to Enty: Of course - that was the intention (although interestingly the pizza was released early anyway http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/10/local/la-me-pizzathief10-2010feb10 ), but that makes no difference - US prisons are totally over-filled due to drugs laws, mandatory minimums and 3 strikes and similar laws. California is currently releasing many convicts purely because it can't afford to hold them all any longer. But crime rates don't go down as imprisonment goes up.

Again why is there so little burglary in Finland? Why was there much more burglary in the UK in the 90s than there is now (IIRC - off-duty is probably more aware of the most up to date figures)?

In reply to Enty:

Sorry to hear you got robbed. I hope you and family recover from it soon. It's a horrible experience. It's never happened to me, but I've seen what it did to my parents. (In the end they had to move house.)

I don't endorse revenge or any of that stuff. Leave all that to the Afghans. And reflect a little on the appalling mess it makes of their society.

As both Jewish and Christian teaching says--mercy trumps revenge every time.

In reply to TobyA:

The desirable stuff is hand held (eg phones) rather than household (CDs, PC, TV, DVD player) so maybe muggings up & burglaries down.

There was something in the press this week saying numbers of young people on heroin & crack has plummeted which if it's true is good news in all sorts of ways.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Great point.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I agree - except for the introduction of religion at the end. Whilst not universal, it's a pretty common moral viewpoint.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

So on the one hand we can dismiss anyone who attempts to manipulate statistics to suggest that our justice system could be better and on the other hand the root cause of chaos in Afghan society is their desire for retribution within their justice system.

I'm not really convinced that argument even makes sense.

In reply to off-duty:

I kind of see what you're saying, but you're extending my agreement with the point about Afghanistan into something that I never said. But I didn't really explain what I meant re. Afghanistan, so here goes:

I can't say that the retributional justice system in Afghanistan is the root cause of the chaos there, but I can say that a society in which 'eye for an eye' justice holds is one which I don't wish to live in. One of the many things that doesn't appeal to me about life in Afghanistan is the way in which crime is punished or wrongdoing (say, adultery) is dealt with. It is one thing of many that characterises the difference between our societies. There is no plucking statistics that support a view I hold here, just a view that retributional justice is one characteristic of a sh!tty, backward society which we can see an example of in Afghanistan.

In reply to Enty:

If anybody said to m e to calm down a bit if one of my kids were killed or raped, I'd put him in the same room as I was bashing the tw*ts brains out with a baseball bat, but I would have to be sure I'd got the right person, thats what the police force is for, not the justice system.

In reply to Enty:

When they were in your bedroom didn't it wake you up? If so what happened then? Just curious.

In reply to Al Evans:

Wow. That's quite a post.

If someone robs and steals - cut there hands off

Touches children - Hands+precious bits cut off

Murders or rapes - Hang em!!

Sorry if anyone disagrees with me, My excuse is I live just down the road from Tony Martin (True), and he is very persuasive

In reply to stupot1988:


Funny how illiteracy often goes with these kind of views.
>

In reply to verygneiss:

Ah the old "Daily Mail" cliche, is this the UK version of Godwin's law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

When did it become ok to claim that any display of honest emotion which isn't in tune with the left/green orthodoxy of; "oh they may have had poor upbringing, be on drugs, be homeless, be less fortunate," excuse mongering can be countered by accusing the person of being a "Daily mail reader."?

In reply to Enty: Personally Enty I think you're being too kind to them, I'd have wanted to do something really nasty to them.

In reply to Pekkie:

Is it kind of views or kinds of view?

In reply to Enty:

Sorry to hear what you have had to go through, and I expect id feel exactly the same in your position .

But the view that once a burglar is in your house they can do what you want to them is a dangerous one. It may reduce the number of burglars, but if they thought it was likely they would meet armed resistance the ones that still continued to burgle would be more likely to arm themselves, and be more likely to use those weapons. I certainly don't consider myself harder or more comfortable with resorting to violence than the sort of person who would force entry to my house at night tooled up to the teeth, and suspect it would end badly for me. And for most people that post here.

And even if you were to manage to overpower them and give them a beating, what then? They are likely to have family and associates who may want to send out a message that random punters should think twice before resisting them. Would you be prepared to risk you and your family entering into a feud with some local crime family? How far would you take it? Do you think it is likely to end well?

As to longer sentences, I tend to agree with you on this one, and think its hard to draw meaningful lessons from the specifics of other countries prison systems. But one of the key points of a justice system is that it has to have the trust of the country to administer what is seen to be justice, so that people will support it and not consider taking the law into their own hands. Whether longer sentences reduce crime isn't the main argument; if 'short' sentences are undermining confidence, and people really are willing to pay for more prisons, instead of just saying they are, then increase the tariffs for all crimes.

Once again, hope you can put this horrible experience behind you,

Cheers

Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Gregor, get with the program!

This is a UKC thread, so kindly keep your reasoned, balanced, sensible arguments to yourself. If you must butt in, please make sure that you make unchallengable claims to absolute truth, wisdom and knowledge, so that it is obvious that anyone of a different opinion about some subject to you is not only stupid and wicked but in fact barely human and should not be entitled to vote, have an opinion or probably even breathe. We all know that the world is entirely black and white, grey is a colour only to be found in soft-porn novels.

A good way to do this is to sneeringly refer to a newspaper they read, or may read, or might have read once. This is the ultimate killer argument that unequivocally proves that your opponents are the spawn of satan, but without the wit and charm. For people so feeble-minded as to disagree with the correct viewpoint (only to be found in certain publications or broadcasts, normally of an extreme or very partisan type), or even to suggest that it might not be 100% right in all its aspects, the best way to convince them of their error is to insult them, and probably their families too. Another way is to badger them to look at a link to a website either from such a partisan, one-sided newspaper, or some completely wacko conspiracy theory website. If only they would read this article, they would instantly see the light and be converted, Damascus road style, to the correct view. They are of course incapable of finding this link by themselves.

If we wanted opinions from open-minded reasonable people, who saw merits in different viewpoints, we'd tell them what they are.

In reply to Simon4:
Good post!

You have however not yet included the unreasoned use of personal insults guaranteed to get your points across.

In reply to Simon4: Great post, you also forgot the importance of pointing out spelling mistakes and general illiteracy.

In reply to Flatus Vetus:

Oops. Obviously it should be either 'this kind of view' or 'these kinds of views'. Hoisted with my own petard, what? Sorry about the cliche.

In reply to Enty:

Problem solved. I've made enquiries to join the local hunt (la chasse) something I've been considering anyway. Apparently you don't get robbed if you have a rifle on top of your wardrobe - wonder why?

E

In reply to Tim Chappell:
>> As both Jewish and Christian teaching says--mercy trumps revenge every time.

Ah yes, that famously merciful Christian philosophy of an eye for an eye. You complained a while back about being regarded as a religous fanatic, yet here you are again bringing religion into a thread.

In reply to Enty: It also explains why most French houses, especially in the countryside, have heavy wooden shutters on all the windows!

You didn't say what happened, did you confront them and they just cleared off or did they get away with a lot of stuff?

The problem of having a gun is would you really be prepared to use it, and if you did could you deal with the thought that the family of the person you shot might just be waiting for a chance to get their revenge? I have a baseball bat next to the door but I don't know what I would do if anyone broke in when I was there. I think I would try and use it as I can lose my temper in such cases but I know that I could expect to have my car vandalised later on, at the very least, and every time we went away for the summer we'd come back with the fear of a reprisal break in. I put an alarm up once when we had a very minor day time break in, it seems to have a dissuasive effect (big box clearly visible below the eaves).

The pleasure of continental life!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Fast asleep matey - they came into our open plan room whilst we were asleep at the top of the tstairs - very close!

Took enough stuff for the next couple of weeks to be a right pain in the arse and a client had just paid us cash for his holiday, it was ready to go in the bank Friday morning (

If there was someone in my house at night with my two girls upstairs asleep I wouldn't think twice about blowing their head off.

E

In reply to Enty:


there was a thread a while ago about torches, and somehow via google I started reading about the different techniques for using a 'flashlight' with your pistol - all very American of course. It was interesting how seriously not shooting your family member thinking they were an intruder was taken in all these discussion. It clearly happens often enough for even the keenest American gun owners to take it into account.

This sort of thing: http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019119682_apushusbandkilledneworl...

In reply to TobyA: Unfortunately, there are far too many people who think they're Dirty Harry- as this thread proves. Far more likely, they are more like Sponge Bob Square Pants. That isn't to say that finding intruders in your house wouldn't be produce a cocktail of terror and adrenaline/anger pumping indignation.

As angry as I'm sure I would be, revenge belittles you and those you intend protecting.

In reply to Enty: Because I sometimes have to go away on the occasional business/climbing trip, even though we live in a very peaceful and relatively secure area, I decided to get Mrs Goucho 2 Great Danes (she loves this breed too) and trust me, if any opportunistic scally decided to break into Chez Goucho, they'd be in for a nasty surprise - in fact srub that, if they went anywhere near Mrs Goucho (they sleep in our room when I'm away) they'd get ripped to bloody pieces.

In reply to Enty:

Hm violent murder and torture is more noble than simply standing in a bedroom. Nice.

Really you don't care about justice you just want revenge and not even revenge but over the top revenge. It is very annoying and scary being robbed and perfectly natural to get angry about it. But really if you put a blow torch to my son/father/friend then I would feel quite entitled to come round and torch your house with your family in it. Then of course your family would feel entitled to come round and do the same to me and before you know it there is a tit for tat blood feud going on. This is partially why we have a separate justice system to do it for us.

The question is whether it is there to punish or to protect society.

In reply to Goucho:

Some neighbours opposite me did much the same, they bought an enormous rottweiler or some monster of that sort - the dog was so strong that the neighbour was often seen being dragged around the streets more than him leading. Then one fine day, in broad daylight they were burgled, the dog didn't even bark, the thieves left him locked in the toilet!

The problem is crooks often know dogs, guns and the use of violence better than honest people. To Enty, if you did blow their heads off you would spend the rest of your life, or a very large chunk of it, in prison, which wouldn't exactly help you or your family. I understand your anger, and get very irritated when people refer to theft as minor crime, but taking the sort of action you mention is going too far, unless perhaps the life of you and yours were threatened and you felt there was no other solution, this would be self defense and is catered for in the law, I think.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

with you there Bruce.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

We've just been staying with a friend in Idaho. He has two enormous hand guns, one in his campervan and the other in his bedroom. He's absolutely adamant that if he woke up to find someone in his house he'd have no hesitation in emptying his gun into the intruder. He also ALWAYS leaves his house and his car unlocked, which I thought was sort of saying 'come on punk, make my day!' I must admit, I don't know the law on this in the States.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Pretty much echoes my thoughts on it, Bruce

I wouldn't have a gun anywhere near my house. Close range, scuffling in the dark, far too Much risk of people I care for being hit accidentally, or the gun being turned on me.

Leave it to the justice system, but that system should feel like it has the trust of.victims to deal.with things adequately. I'm not certain that it does at present

Cheers

Gregor

In reply to TobyA:
Aye. And this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Marvin_Gaye
and this
http://www.newstimes.com/policereports/article/Cops-Father-didn-t-realize-h...

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Ours are big gentle pussy cats, and you don't even know they're on the lead, but when it comes to guarding the house, they are very alert (we have to make sure we welcome visitors in front of them, and then they're fine) and of course, when they bark, it sounds like we've got Satan's very own Cerberus living with us )

Thankfully, we live in a very tranquil part of Southern France, but I have no doubt that should we get burgled, then the dogs would certainly be up to the task - especially as they've been trained for it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I am fairly certain I would use it. Many years ago whilst visiting my parents I walked in to their utility room to get something out of the deep freeze at the same time as a couple of blokes forced open the outside door to the room.
My first reaction on seeing a bloke in a hoody come through the door with a pry bar in his hand was to grab the first thing at hand (an old pair of blacksmiths tongs that my dad was cleaning up) and take a swing at him. In my haste I missed him and the pair of them legged it, I chased but they were a lot faster.

These days if I hear a noise downstairs in the night and the wife is in bed next to me the makers of said noise will be looking at the wrong end of a 12guage Winchester pump action shotgun in the hands of a naked bloke.
It won't be loaded because I don't store the shells with the gun but if it fails to scare the crap out of them I can use it as a club.

In reply to Goucho:

How would they manage with a couple of poisoned steaks? Not wishing to alarm you but if they really wanted to rob you they would, although precautions will keep the kids looking for a bit of cash away. The best is to not have anything much worth pinching.

In reply to Enty: Very interesting to see all the; "you should be ashamed to experience a natural human emotion", posts here.

Does anyone really believe that our Enty woudl have carried out the torture he describes?

Is he wrong to think that the violation of his house and more importantly the intrusion into his child's bedroom, is beyond the pale, and to seek retribution?

There seems to be a lot of armchair saints in support of the criminals here, I wonder how they'd react if the shoe was on the other foot.

In reply to stroppygob:

Are you sure?

I think there seem to be more armchair psychopaths in support of straw men....

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to Enty: Chris Grayling is to change the law “at the first opportunity” to give stronger legal safeguards to those who use force to protect their family or property.

Mr Grayling said that he wanted to “finally lay the issue to rest once and for all” following a series of high-profile cases where home owners who have confronted criminals have been arrested. In the future, only those using clearly excessive force, such as stabbing a burglar who was already unconscious, should face the prospect of criminal action, he said.

Mr Grayling, who will address the Conservative Party conference on Tuesday, said that he wanted to bring a “sharper narrative on law and order issues”. His first move would be to change the law to give greater protection to home owners. It currently says only that they are entitled to use “proportionate” force.

Good stuff!!

In reply to stroppygob:

Just for clarifications sake, did the article mention whether shooting an unarmed intruder as they ran away would be regarded as clearly excessive force or not?

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Armed or not should not come in to it, at 2am having woken suddenly and being scared you should not need proof that an intruder is armed and just work on the presumption that he is.
Running away is a different matter though, if they are running away they are no longer a threat.

In reply to Dax H:

If he's running down the Garden with my laptop, Mrs. Ent's handbag and purse, all our credit cards, driving licences, 1000€, my wallet, my new Nikon and my Garmin - I'm still going to have a pop!

E

In reply to stroppygob:

It's all smoke and mirrors I'm afraid.

You can currently use force that you believe is reasonable.
Proportionate hasn't really got much to do with it.

If you reasonably believed, for example, that youand your families lives were at risk then you could defend yourself and them using whatever force you believed you had to, and could justify pre-emptive striking, and possibly continued blows even if the suspect was trying to escape.

The suggestion that "clearly excessive force" will still be an offence, suggests that the law will remain pretty much the same.

In reply to off-duty:

Those were my thoughts too. Haven't we heard this before, most Tory party conference season...?

Like you say, the law is already clear, and there has been a recent case of a man who used lethal force against burglar who wasnt prosecuted, as it was felt to have been reasonable. Which is entirely fine in my book.

My prediction is that when the detail is announced this aft, it will end up looking pretty much identical to what we already have

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to Enty: Some little scum bag tried breaking in my house back when I lived in Blackpool . I was in bed alone in the house, admittedly about 10am, I was having a lie in. Then suddenly there was a loud bang on the backdoor (someone trying to kick it in). Not knowing exactly what it was I got up and put some clothes on, then there was a smash of glass as he'd failed to kick the door in he smashed a window to try and open it from the inside.

Now knowing it was someone breaking in, I equipped my 6 inch combat knife but kept it hidden and went downstairs to see some skinny little chav trying to get in. As I approached the door down the hall he spotted me and had that moment of hesitation and decided to run. As there was broken glass and the door was still locked he was long gone by the time I got out side and of course he was never caught by the police.

If however he'd made it in and decided to confront me rather than run away I would have been fully prepared to plunge the knife in with the full intention of killing him. The way I see it, in such a situation you have to take it as a fight for your life. You don't know if they are armed and you don't want to give them the opportunity to pick something up if they aren't.

I'm no hard man fighter so I have to assume I'd only get one blow so I'd go for a kill, leaving minimum chance they'll be in any state to retaliate after my first action. I'm not saying I'd hack them to death if they didn't die but I'd make sure they no longer posed a threat before calling the police. And being me, I'd be quite pleased if they did die as a result of my defence.

In reply to Enty:

If someone broke into my house, id grab the nearest hard looking object to be.. i.e. a cricket bat, and clout them round the head.

I couldnt give two monkey's bottoms, what their upbringing is!

As a country we pay enough damn taxes to support those who don't have jobs, do drugs, are genuine bums , to ensure they can have a nice life. *Disclaimer: not all jobless, benefit claiming people, are druggy bums*
Personally i work bloody hard for a living to pay for a house and its belongings. And should someone break into my house to take it from me they will get what they've got coming.

I think as a country we are soft on punishment, but as a country i think their are lots of flaws, but i guess it'd be perfect if we were all prime ministers!

Not getting what the big deal is. You lost some things.

I'd be angry too, but punishments should fit the crime. Death or torture, are disproportionate.

It's just stuff. You'll replace it all or forget it all over time.

In reply to needvert:
So if the punishment should fit the crime how do you punish a thief?

In reply to needvert:

I think Enty's not so bothered about his stuff as the fact that someone came into the room where he, his partner and his six year old daughter were sleeping.

In reply to needvert:

Like I asked someone higher up the thread - when were strangers last in your house when you were asleep?

E

In reply to off-duty:

My concern with a lot of the rhetoric about new laws concerning confronting intruders is that it may well up the ante. As you say, there are currently laws that sufficiently cover home owners actions, where intruders have been injured or killed without home owners being prosecuted, but running away from the scene is the most likely outcome.

If you plant the idea more solidly that someone can attack and kill an intruder essentially with impunity, and the chance of successfully fleeing becomes reduced, there may be some reduction in the number of burglaries etc. but it may also be coupled with the intruders being more likely to be armed and react violently when confronted. Laws supposedly to protect home owners could result in more being seriously injured or killed.

In reply to Liam M: Precisely Liam. That doesn't sit well with the chubby wanabe Rambos though.

In reply to lummox:

+1

I made exactly that point yesterday. No one picked up on it

And everyone continues to be certain that in a melee in the dark with a criminal that they would come out on top.

I've got a much more realistic assessment of how I'm likely to fare in a fight to the death with a desperate criminal, and will leave the ice axe in the cellar for now...

In reply to Enty:

In my case, twice in the last 18 months. Yes I mean uninvited home intruders who I didn't know. In the first case there were three of them, in the second case just one. I even encountered the one in the second case. Nobody came into the room where I was sleeping. I imagine that it is this aspect that is getting to you.
In my cases I was left bemused and amused, mostly. I started posting a load of waffle about it last night but then deleted it as it was not beneficial to the thread. However, you have asked the question several times now so I thought I may as well answer it. My experience of course is not like yours, e.g. I don't have a 6 year old child to worry about, so I am not comparing like for like, just giving a plain answer with no judgment implied.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Fair do but In my case having my girls involved makes all the difference.

E

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

TBF the OP is probably being realistic. Some people are just more aggresive than others, I've been suprised one or twice at friends (in particalur climbers) who've got involved in things I wouldn't and have come out on top.

In reply to Papillon:

Yup, and I'm aware some people on here have eg military backgrounds, and may have a much higher likelihood of coming out on top than me...

Noone can guarantee this though , and escalating a situation by using a weapon will always be risky

its been discussed on 5 live this am, and it was.mentioned that the CPS have figures from 1990 to 2005 on this, showing 11 people arrested for assaults against intruders in domestic or commercial premises. They outlined these, and the cases where prosecutions followed were where clearly unreasonable force was used, including torturing a man and setting fire to him in a pit....!

There appears to be no evidence that the law at present is failing, though as I said earlier, sentencing could and should be tougher. The announcement looks much more like a way of grabbing the headlines from Boris than it does a serious change in the law

Cheers

Gregor

In reply to Enty:

Without doubt enty, I've got young girls myself, your experience terrifies me thinking about it- and I think it would be relevant in considering what was reasonable in how you responded if you had injured them

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to Enty: We were burgled in quite a sinister way. We were asleep and they entered throught he kitchen window. They then took all the sharp knives from the kitchen drawer (I assume this is after they realised house was occupied) and then went room to room nicking stuff. They left the knives on the floor when they needed to pick something up...so we awoke to a house lighter of various bits and pieces, and knives left by our beds.

I was shaken up and bloody glad none of us woke up. I then spent a period of keeping a hatchet under my bed.

Bottom line...in that situation, you will have to attack/defend yourself if you woke up because good chance you or loved ones will be murdered.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Oh, so he's advocating torture mostly because of trespassing?

Heh.

In reply to Enty: Sorry to hear of your experience. Joining the hunt seems like a sensible move if the stats show they don't get troubled. I have a gun cupboard in my bedroom and although I am pretty bad at shooting pigeons in flight, I sleep easier knowing an intruder would vacant the premises quickly on hearing a 12 bore going off out of the window. I'm not prepared to shoot anyone but they don't need to know that.

In reply to Sir Chasm: you take away his liberty?

In reply to Enty: Enty, have you considered getting a dog?

In reply to needvert:

What would you do to protect your child, out of interest?

In reply to Game of Conkers: I asked him what punishment fitted the crime, all you've done is state what our arbitrary law provides for, why do you think being locked up fits the crime?

In reply to Sir Chasm: The punishment is taking away his liberty. Which fits the crime of taking away possessions.

So it fits

Thx

In reply to Game of Conkers: It fits because that's the punishment? Well done for stating what happens. But why? If society decided that 3 fingers should be removed then that would be the punishment and presumably you'd say that was fitting too, because that would be the punishment.

In reply to Sir Chasm: I'm saying that the punishment does fit the crime.

You seem to be itching for a fight? Are you stressed or bored?

In reply to Game of Conkers: If the burglar kidnaps you and locks you in a room depriving them of their liberty would fit the crime, if someone steals your lawnmower why does locking them up fit the crime?

In reply to jon:

I'm renting a room in Maine at the moment.. when I moved in I asked for a key.. 'why? we never lock the door'..

a father shot his son in the Us last week.. constant mistaken shootings..

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I would rather they were locked up than made to cut my grass for a year. So it fits the crime for me.

If you want eye for an eye, then it's obvious what the punishment should be

In reply to Tall Clare:

Do you mean take revenge on the child's behalf?

If someone were to discover an intruder in their child's bedroom and, say, stab them to death with a kitchen knife - that could be seen as protecting the child. As the law stands they'd already be very unlikely to be charged with any offence in the aftermath of that.
(Arrested and questioned, almost certainly. Charged with an offence, almost certainly not.)

Once the burglar is all trussed up in gaffa tape as per Enty's disturbing revenge fantasy, the child is no longer in any danger and whatever happens then has *nothing* to do with protecting the child.

Quite the reverse - being present while a parent tortures a complete stranger in the family home strikes me as something a child really needs to be protected from.

In reply to deepsoup: Not neccesarily...have you ever watched "Dexter"?

In reply to deepsoup:

No, and that's an intriguing extrapolation.

I was just wondering what Needvert would do to protect his child. I don't have children of my own (though I have partial responsibility for two others) so I can see that my reaction to this is going to be different to that of someone who has kids and who's actually experienced the situation Enty describes - however rational we all claim to be about these things.

In reply to off-duty:


^^^ Exactly this. ^^^

Even the government gimp I just heard interviewed on the radio said that the proposed changes (which he was speaking in favour of) were "more to do with perception than reality".

I don't get it - why "change" the law (without actually changing it) because people don't understand it? If people misunderstand, educate them. They've got PR people and advertising agencies enough on the books, so why waste parliament's time dicking about with the law unnecessarily?

In reply to Tall Clare:

No extrapolation at all. It's what Enty said he would do in the OP, and what needvert was addressing in the post you replied to.

In reply to Game of Conkers:
Can you think of a more objective reason why the punishment of locking someone up fits the crime of them nicking your lawnmower? Rather than "because it's wot I want".

In reply to Tall Clare:

Oh, and regarding this bit..
After the terrible shock he suffered, its completely understandable that Enty should be angry (to say the least), and its completely understandable to harbour a violent revenge fantasy. I hope it doesn't last *too* long though, I don't think it would be healthy to dwell on such things.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Talking of Dexter - another unintended consequence...
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/opinion/columnists/he-wasnt-really-a-burglar-...

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Nope, never seen it, soz.

In reply to deepsoup:

Enty has always struck me as a reasonable bloke so I would expect the anger to dissipate somewhere between finishing up with the gaffer tape and lighting the blow torch (ok maybe he'd light it and dance around to 'Stuck In The Middle With You' for a bit).

In reply to off-duty:

Hah. And a non-consequence too. The Mash are all over this today.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/still-not-okay-to-attack-banks-w...

In reply to Enty: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/still-not-okay-to-attack-banks-w...

In reply to Sir Chasm: No need to come up with anything. The punishment fits the crime perfectly. Don't you agree?

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

a very sad view point. To take pleasure from taking a life

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I think you've missed the point of proportionality in law, which is what people are alluding to when they say the punishment should fit the crime.

In other words, as it stands in most EU countries, a punishment fitting a crime doesn't mean that the punishment should mirror the crime or be identical to it. It just means that the punishment for a given crime should reflect the severity of that crime.

In most non-backward looking countries prison terms and community sentencing are used as punishment as opposed to state sanctioned killing/torture/violence etc. So a longer prison term for a more severe crime and a lesser prison term for a less severe crime.

That's what people mean by a punishment fitting a crime, you may argue for a more retributionary system but at least take a minute to get what people mean by "fitting the crime" before you imply their idiocy.

In reply to Duncan Bourne: Seems entirely in keeping with his deeply unpleasant views on previous threads.

In reply to Sharp: You're leaping to the usual conclusions, as if locking up criminals is the only option and is some sort of panacea that's worked so well to date. I'm not suggesting retribution, more that for some non violent crimes we may need to be a little more creative, putting them to some sort of useful work and/or improving their education.
I haven't implied anyone's idiocy, if I think you're an idiot I'll call you an idiot.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

WOW - shit a brick I actually agree with you for a change!

In reply to lummox:
Well you're right there. At least he is consistent.

In reply to Tall Clare:

I'm not sure what I'd do, or where I'd draw the line. I don't think anyone really is.

I think it's worth pointing out that *nothing* was done here, and the child was safe. This was not a murder or rape, this was a burglary.

Sure, you could say "But they could have killed my daughter!", but that's true of many strangers and situations, anyone walking down the street could stab anyone else. Creative strangers could condemn you to a slow and painful death, if they're serving your food.


I suppose it's worth mentioning that I consider effective torture to be worse of a crime than homicide.

In reply to Enty: Isn't a factor which needs to be considered here, the fact that we cannot all sit back rationally, scratch our chin, and think;

"Hmmmm... this tall male stranger with a balaclava on, holding my weeks wages and my camera in his hand, is here in my 6 year old child's bedroom. I wonder what proportional force I may consider using against him now. Just let me debate the pros and cons with myself."

Most of us, with a scintilla of love for our children and an ounce of self respect and self preservation, would rip into him and ensure he was in no position to do anything at all, before calling the cops.

Only then woudl we wonder what sort of poor upbringing he had, and whether we should feel sorry for him.

In reply to stroppygob:

I'm scratching my chin at present and debating the pros and cons of what would be proportionate force to rip into this balaclava wearing straw man...

1. The law currently says nothing about proportionate, only that the force used should be reasonable, ie not unreasonable.

2. There is no expectation that you should behave like an analytical robot

3. The case law outlined on the radio relating to this included a case where a woman leaving the scene to find a shotgun, and returning to shoot armed intruders was entirely reasonable. Trussing up an overpowered intruder, throwing him in a pit and setting fire to him was not reasonable and led to a conviction.

4. All this has already been discussed repeatedly upthread. It is starting to look like you want to believe that the law is different from what it is in reality, perhaps so you can get worked up into a state of righteous indignation...?

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to stroppygob:

What a load of crap. Some would attack the burgular. Most would not, entirely due to self preservation. Absoluteley nothing to do with self respect.



What are you on about?!?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: I was indicating nothing about the law, only people's gut reaction. As has been said, some would react with fear, some would react with violence.

In reply to needvert:

Really? Worse than murder? One of the usual objections to torture is that is doesn't provide the desired results, but if the torture was effective (if for argument's sake someone could be tortured to reveal a missing girl) that objection would be removed.

In reply to stroppygob:
>
Of course. Most people would be extremely angry and if able, they'd batter the bloke. It's a natural reaction. Most would feel fully justified if they had done such a thing (rightly) but possibly feel some awkward feelings about it
Most though would not go on a forum for a week afterwards saying how they would blow their heads off and torture them. Rationality would usually take over. To me, it smacks of frustration at being ineffectual and feeling out of control and talking about the extremes of what they would do so as to try to regain that control. In short, it sounds like a coping mechanism for inadequacy.


I don't ever think it's a case of feeling sorry for someone who commits this kind of crime because of a bad background. As others have pointed out, many have bad backgrounds and don't. But just locking people up forever is a very expensive solution. Not only that, it doesn't recognise that while that upbringing may not be an excuse, it IS a REASON. I am all about practicality. I think it's more practical for society's laws to put away the idea of revenge and think about rehabilitation, where it's possible.
Do you really think the way to rehabilitate a person who was brought up to dislike and fear authority is to put them in a prison under an iron regime?
As a manager who deals with people I can tell you that few people really are motivated by the stick. You may get them to do what you want in that instant, but you'll build resentment and make your future relationship difficult. If you show that person why you need a thing done a certain way, invest your time in them and even encourage their own ideas and engage them......... you get FAR more from them.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:
I was with you up to the point where you think the same techniques that are applicable to employees are applicable to the prison population. There's a huge raft of measures that don't involve incarceration/punishment that are used prior to jail. The stick's only used bevause the carrot's failed.

In reply to Ridge:

Yes, I know. I was on some of them as a teenager. Take community service. Ten of us turned up at some old dear's place to do her garden. one person supervising, 4 people idly working and 6 smoking ciggarettes. No real goals set for the day, no attempt at working in a team. Just ten individuals.
I refused to do any more such placements and said I would prefer to go back to court for an alternative sentence. They didn't like this much and asked why so I told them. Eventually I was given a place in an old people's home and it was very rewarding. But that had nothing to do with the probation service. Again, there was little organisation about it, no structure and now real lessons to be learned. I enjoyed it simply because I felt i was doing something useful and the people in the home were mostly quite entertaining.

The carrot fails because it's never implemented correctly.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Good post

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Indeed. Torture is a horrible thing, every person has their limit, perhaps it'll take hours, or days, or perhaps years, of pain and disfiguring of their bodies, but eventually they'll in ernest wish they'd rather been the victim of murder. And most will one day break, and betray every ideal and every person they ever knew, be willing to say anything, to make it stop, to be allowed to finally die.

Suppose we tortured criminals to reveal missing girls. Would we consider such a country civilized? I certainly wouldn't, I'd be quite horrified if we took to criminals with blow torches, over a period of weeks, or months, until they told us everything we wanted to know.
And as far as I can tell the west for the most part* agrees it's not a good way to do business.

* The US and their terror suspects aside

In reply to needvert: Effective torture for some may be as "trivial" as pulling their fingernails out, it's ridiculous hyperbole to make a blanket statement saying it's worse than murder.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Perhaps it was not worded correctly.
Murder isn't just murder, is it?
Some murders are almost accidental. Some are pre meditated, some are not. Premeditated murder usually receives stiffer sentences than other types of murder.

torture however is pretty much always premeditated. It isn't just an attempt to deprive a person of life, the intent is to inflict pain and discomfort on that person. To murder a person you must summon the will to push in a knife, pull a trigger or something similar which takes an instant to carry out (if you exclude the planning)
torture requires a sustained, merciless attack on a helpless person and in this respect I find it in some ways worse than murder.

In reply to Wonko The Sane: If I shoot you in the knee it would be torture, if I shoot you in the head it's murder. Is one quicker than the other?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That isn't really the case though.

If someone burgled your house while armed and you had a gun, shooting them in the knee would not be torture, it would be using minimal force self defence and preferable to killing the person.

In reply to Wonko The Sane: What if the burglar had the gun and shot you in the knee and said if you didn't tell him where your safe was he'd shoot you again, that would be torture wouldn't it? Would it be worse than him murdering you and then searching your house?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Even his shitty, snidey dig?

Love UKC - for wanting to inflict intense pain on someone who tried to destroy your life and endanger your family you're either inadequate, a Macho man or a Chubby Rambo. I think you're just f*cking normal.

E

In reply to Sir Chasm:

It's easy enough to bat 'what ifs' backwards and forwards. The point is, generally speaking, torture is usually a premeditated thing.

In reply to Wonko The Sane: Yes,and the point is that generally murder is worse.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That's your contention. Mine is that the intent behind torture is generally worse.

I wasn't discussing outcomes, but even there, death could sometimes be preferable to torture.

In reply to Enty:

But they didn't try to destroy your life or endanger your family, they tried (and succeeded) in taking some of your belongings.

In reply to needvert:

I think it's reasonable to feel endangered if a stranger is in the same room as your sleeping child. Isn't it?

In reply to Tall Clare:
I'd say yes if they're in the same room as your sleeping child, no if they've been in the same room as your sleeping child and gone again.

I mean, I wouldn't blame you if you woke up and caught them in the act and subdued them fairly forcefully because you were afraid for your safety and your family's safety, but if they've already been and gone without doing you harm (apart from nicking your stuff) then I can understand feeling pretty shocked and distraught but I think that wanting to find them and hurt them is something that you should try to get over.

In reply to Enty:

Sorry enty, missed the dig- I was referring to his post on why community punishments fail, from his apparent personal experience of them.

And sorry if it feels that this thread is getting at you. I'd agree that it seems perfectly normal to experience the emotions you're describing after what happened. As I said, I've got young kids, and what happened to you is one of the things that scares me most.

I think, and hope, that the rambo stuff is aimed at the people coming here who haven't had this happen, who appear to be indulging in unrealistic fantasies about what the situation would be like in reality.

I don't think any of us can really know what we would do in that circumstance, as it would be an instinctive reaction in the large part. I'd personally fear escalating the situation as think I'm less likely to be good at inflicting violence than criminals would be, and provided everyone was safe, i wouldn't risk my life to protect my property. I've got insurance for that.

If my children were in danger, or I even thought they were, I agree, anything goes, and I'm confident the law would back me up. I really hope it wouldnt come to that though, as the outcome would be far from certain, and in the end I just want everyone I care for to be in one piece at the end of it.

I'm going to leave this thread now, as it was your thread and it has been hijacked to cover other related matters in a way that is clearly not fair on you. Best wishes, and I hope they catch the scrotes, and a long sentence follows for them,

Best wishes
Gregor

In reply to needvert:

There was a shovel handle lying on the sofa at the bottom of the stairs where we were sleeping. What the f*ck do you think that was for? What if my wife had gone down for a glass of orange juice?

I f*cking despair sometimes.

E

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Nice one - cheers.

E

In reply to Enty:

In fairness to needvert, I don't think you made any reference to this earlier in the thread - all we had was that your intruders had been rooms where you and your family were, and had not disturbed you. Unless I missed a post. I'm sure needvert would have taken this into account if they knew about that.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I didn't even suggest a conclusion, let alone leap to any usual conclusions. I gave a plain description of what people meant when they talked about a punishment fitting a crime.

You made it clear that when people said a punishment should fit a crime you thought they meant it should be identical to a crime. You asked a number of times how locking someone up fitted the crime (when you suggested that a prison term fits the crime of abduction and unlawful imprisonment but not stealing lawnmowers). I was merely trying to explain that when people say "fitting the crime" they're talking about proportionality, not attempting to punish criminals in a way that identically fits their crime.

I said that in most countries prison and community sentencing are used, I didn't place a value on that or say whether it was good or bad. I also suggested other forms of punishment practiced today. To a reasoned reader that might make them assume that I was aware that prison isn't the only type of punishment. You obviously missed that.

At no point did I say prison worked, that it was the only way or that it was a panacea. You've fallen into the usual trap of assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a left leaning pro-prison fanatic.


Why even bother to write that? Have you any data to back it up, have you studied a sample of murder cases and torture cases and come up with a value judgment on each one and then drawn the conclusion that out of your sample the greater number of "worse" crimes in your opinion were murder cases?

What you actually mean by that is, having considered what you think to be the average murder and the average torture case you've come to the conclusion that, in your head at least, the imaginary murder cases are worse than the imaginary torture cases.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

That's a silly contention, do you mean torture where the purpose is to derive pleasure from the act or do you mean the type of torture we're told the US carry out, where the intention is to obtain information?

In reply to Enty:

Sounds like a wise precaution against being set about with a blowtorch...

In reply to Enty: FWIW, it was not a dig. It was a simple statement of how it appears from here. And nor was it meant judgementally. The simple fact is, you only have to look at your posts to see that you are STILL very distraught about this and you appear to be looking for coping mechanisms.

Seeking to regain control is as normal a reaction as the instinct to protect your loved ones.


you asked a question in your OP and it's developed into the rights and wrongs of 'revenge' etc.
Most people think the law is there for precisely the feelings you are feeling. To avoid the 'eye for an eye' mentality.

You say the law does not protect us. No, the law cannot protect every single individual from every harm. The law never will unless we lived in a police state the likes of which would be far worse than the world we have where some crimes go unpunished. The law does however do a good job of minimising the amount of crime which happens. Not perfect, but then what is in life?

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Forgive me, as I'm sure it wasn't how you intended it, but that comes across as rather patronising.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

The shovel handle is irrelevent.
I'd assume that anyone entering someone elses house without being armed in some way was stupid - For that reason I assume they are armed anyway.

E

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Like anything, there are levels of it. Beleive it or not, I've been waterboarded myself. Me and a mate did it to each other after watching GI Jane when it came out. For a laugh. the idea being to see if 'getting sued to it' does actually make you more able to withstand it. Yes, you can withstand it 'easier' if you know what to expect and how to not panick. However, I can tell you from experience that it's bloody exhausting doing that and I can imagine that even a few hours of that every day for a while would demoralise you so much you'd probably be grateful for a bullet in the head.

I am not trying to say all torture is worse than all murder. I am saying that the premediated torture of a person can be worse.

Thinking more on it though, I think something such as waterboarding which almost certainly won't kill or harm you is nothing like as bad as say, putting a blowtorch on someone.

Like anything, there are degrees of it.

In reply to Tall Clare:

To you perhaps. It was simply meant dispassionately.
Which is the entire point being discussed. Revenge vs dispassionate implementation of the law.

In reply to Tall Clare:

That's his game. I've never come across anyone like that in real life.
Wonko you're so wrong mate. I'm well over this. It's a chance to get a new laptop on the insurance.
Might take longer for Mrs. Ent but hey ho.

E

In reply to Enty:

That's the first mention in this thread of shovel handle, else I've missed something.

Lets just recap what you've said:

"If a genie jumped out of a bottle and said Enty what fate would you like for the burglar? I'd say wrap him in duct tape, put him on the floor in front of me and give me a blow torch - I really do stand by this - I honestly would do it!

If anyone says wait until you've calmed down a bit. If I could find him, I'd do the same to the guy who robbed my car in 1995."



So, for the robbery of your car, presumably that didn't have your daughter or wife sleeping in it, you'd want the same fate? Even after 17 years to cool off about it?

I believe it is quite fortunate that you do not command a sufficient enough position of authority in our society to have your will executed.

In response to the robbery of either your car or your house, it is not a reasonable or civilized action.

I understand how you could feel those urges, we all often feel strong emotions.

But, it's important we have this discussion. It's important we have this argument, because maybe next time you will catch him, maybe next time you will find he tripped on the stairs and broke a leg, and you'll go into your shed and return with duct tape and a blow torch. Or maybe you'll call the police instead, because you know it's the best course of action.

There seem to be a few suggestions that it is reasonable to harbor the desire to act violently against an intruder. I wouldn't dispute that, but surely we can agree that while it might be an expected emotional response to enact perfunctory, violent justice on an intruder it isn't something which the state should condone.

I'm not talking about reasonable defensive force here but there is a difference between defense and attack. I'm happy to live in a country whose law allows a citizen to kill in defense of their home but I don't want to live in a country where people who use violence as immediate retribution are protected by the law.

Reading through the previous posts the distinction seems to have been missed. You can defend yourself. If you're frightened for you or your family (as you would be) the law doesn't expect you to act like a robot and to critically evaluate how much force you need to use. You aren't going to get sent to jail because you went a little too far. But some posters on here have openly admitted they would enjoy going too far, that they'd give the intruder what they deserved and that's a whole different thing. It's one thing acting in defense and then going too far in the heat of the moment but a totally different scenario when you plan to give a criminal their desert outside of the justice system.

In reply to Wonko The Sane: Where did I say it couldn't be worse? Do you have a typing fetish?

In reply to needvert:

If that did happen I would suggest either deleting this thread or calling the police. If Enty seriously injured a burglar having wrote what he has on this thread I don't think a judge would look too kindly on him.

In reply to needvert:

Ok let's forget about the blowtorch stuff and torture and I'll say this:

If my famous genie appeared again I'd just say make them disappear quickly and painlessly.

E

In reply to Enty: As you've seen from the responses to your thread, your normal is different to lots of other people's... btw, you're clearly not chubby : ). Hope the coppers catch whoever broke in to your place.

In reply to lummox:

Cheers.
What I don't get about UKC is that I don't get many people with these views in real life. Must say alot about the people I hang around with

E

In reply to Enty:

Are you sure?

The thing is, if I were sat in front of a friend, a person I cared for who had just had such an experience, the human part of me would be engaged by that and my response would not be dispassionate because I'm 'involved' So to an extent, I'd just agree with them because I would understand they are venting.

Online is different. We are not involved. We do not know each other. So the topic can be viewed more dispassionately.

One would hope that decisions made at a high level about rights and wrongs in society are ALL made on the grounds of what's best for all, and not made on an emotional level of what feel feel in a given instant.

In reply to Enty:
After uing the blow torch....get an axe to cut off their hands.....They wont do it again.....also felt that way went some c**** stole my car.
Guppy

In reply to lummox:

seconded.
I might not agree with the blow torch but I still hope that they catch the buggers

In reply to Enty:

I have a daughter too, (17 yrs old.)

If I had been in your position and had caught them, even if they were in the act of leaving, I would have had no second thoughts. I'm a reasonably big bloke, and, though in my 50's, I'm quite strong from regular gym work etc. I also have 20 + years martial arts training behind me.

My old "red mist" which was subdued due to my martial arts training, would return. I would have hurt them severely. I would have no thought nor consideration for the law, their personal circumstances, or my responsibility to be proportionate.

You have my sympathy and my empathy Enty.

Let others believe what they think they would have done. Until you’ve been in those circumstances, you never ever know for sure.

I honestly think there's a lot of people on here who like to think they would do some serious damage to a criminal and would bottle it.

I also think those people, and the ones who could and probably would do some damage assume that everyone else thinks this way. I'm not sure that's true!

In reply to stroppygob:


That seems a funny thing to add immediately after speaking with such certainty, as if you do.

In reply to Fultonius:

I'm sure there are. Most of the people on here, most of the people everywhere, are basically pretty decent.

Doing some "serious damage" to a fellow human being isn't something most of us are cut out for. This is a good thing, and to characterise it as a lack of "bottle" is macho bullshit.

In reply to deepsoup:

This was sort of my thinking. Of those I know who have seen real carnage, few would wish to be involved in it unless forced. Perhaps excepting those who were somewhat damaged by the experience.

In reply to deepsoup:

Agreed. If someone broke into my house where my kids were asleep I'd be really pissed off, and would want them caught and punished, but if they'd run away i can't imagine being so consumed with rage I'd want to run after them and do them "serious damage" - I'd just be relieved they'd gone.

In reply to Enty:


Ok, no. Better, possibly.

I'm sorry to hear you got burgled, that's not right and you don't deserve it. Nor is torturing someone with a blowtorch. If you seriously consider that an acceptable response then perhaps it's worth seeking out some victim support.

jk

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


It was in France, they won't be!

Assuming in the South it's the same as in the Paris region, they will just note the complaint in writing and that will be it. They don't even bother to come round and look at the break-in, and as for taking finger prints etc, that's just in your dreams unless anyone is injured.

The only reason most people report it to the police is you need proof of this to make an insurance claim. I would also report such an event so that statistics can build up a bit and also on the rare occasion that the police do pick them up red handed and they haven't yet got rid of all the stolen property in which case they sometimes contact people who have reported thefts, very rare though.

In reply to stroppygob:
or as an alternative punishment you could get the person who broke in to become your lover and then drive them to suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon_%28artist%29

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I'll pass.

In reply to deepsoup:

Similar, but not the same.