The Castle Doctrine in the U.K.

Thanks to FishyJay we have the following report from Sky news Online.

The Tories want to give people who kill burglars while defending their home more protection from prosecution, according to the shadow home secretary.

You don't suppose those crazy Tories are talking about getting away with murder like they do so easily in America? It seems to me that even in the United Kingdom they understand what constitutes "lethal threat," or am I wrong?

Laci provided a link to another article from the Guardian. Here's Laci's post on it.

Talk of the Englishmen defending his castle provokes such a rush of blood to the Conservative head that judgment disappears. Last week Munir Hussain was sent to prison for inflicting violent vengeance on a particularly vicious burglar, and now Chris Grayling has said he wants to rip up the reasonable force test that restricts self-defence. The shadow home secretary's proposal is a populist perennial, but one that never quite blooms, as it makes no sense.

What is so difficult about differentiating between justice and vengeance? I never understood it, but I believe "that's what's the deal we're dealin' in."

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Death for Duncan

CNN reports on the sentencing to death of Joseph Edward Duncan III.

I wrote about this before, expressing my sincere condolences to the family of the victims.

Duncan showed no reaction other than smiling as the verdict was passed to the judge.

He took Dylan and the boy's then-8-year-old sister, Shasta, to a remote western Montana campsite where he raped, tortured and threatened them before shooting Dylan in the head and burning his body. Jurors viewed horrifying video Duncan made of him sexually abusing, torturing and hanging Dylan until the boy lost consciousness.


I guess everybody is so outraged at what he did that open-minded discussion about capital punishment is out of the question. I can only repeat what I said before: what I can't accept is the government doing it and dressing it up as something justified and wholesome and legal.

Joseph Edward Duncan III

My heart goes out the the victims and the surviving family members. The picture of Dylan Groene and the description of what was done to him is enough to make the staunchest anti-death penalty person think twice. As one of them, I wish to express my deepest condolences to all those affected by this terrible crime. In commenting on the merits of the death penalty for Mr. Duncan, I intend no disrespect to anyone involved, also to those not directly involved who are passionate about this issue.

CNN reports the story today because the Idaho federal jury in Boise found Joseph Edward Duncan III eligible for the death penalty. His crimes are as bad or worse than other cases we've discussed recently, here and here. Nevertheless, my position remains unchanged. I cannot condone capital punishment, period. It is state sanctioned murder, completely premeditated and exactly what is proscribed in every set of laws from the Ten Commandments of Moses to the Magna Carta to the United States Constitution. The USA in the 21st century should not need to resort to barbaric practices like this to protect its citizens.

So why are we still doing it then? I believe the answer can be seen in this.

The slain boy's father, Steven Groene, and other family supporters embraced after the verdict but seemed to keep their emotions in check.

It's revenge, payback, whatever you want to call it, but I don't believe it's about justice. These "emotions" they held in check are completely understandable to me, at least as understandable as is possible for an outsider who, than God, has never had to face anything like this. I can understand the desire for revenge; I could even imagine committing murder myself in that situation. But what I can't accept is the government doing it and dressing it up as something justified and wholesome and legal.