Talking point: Outlaw
Created | Updated Apr 7, 2003
Way back in old English law, there was a social status described as Outlaw. Being declared outlaw had serious implications for a person; it meant quite literally that they were outside of the law’s protection. In essence it meant that they were lower than animals, and they could be, by any citizen, held captive, tortured, raped, murdered or have any other erstwhile illegal act performed upon them or their property, and the law enforcers would take no action against the perpetrator of the act. Draconian? Maybe. Fair? It depends on whether the status was conferred fairly.
Most often, the status of outlaw was declared when a person was accused of a crime, but would not submit himself to be judged, or if he escaped before punishment was meted out. In reality it was a form of banishment; by self-imposed exile, the criminal could avoid justice, but if he returned he could be summarily executed.
The modern everyday definition of an outlaw is somebody who breaks the law. The status is conferred easily, and has no physical implications; it has become practically meaningless in real terms.
In recent times there have been several high profile cases in the UK where law-abiding citizens have acted to protect themselves, their family or their property from criminals, only to fall foul of the law themselves. In one case, a farmer shot two *armed (see asterisk below) intruders as they were carrying out a burglary at his property. One burglar was killed, the other was injured, and incidentally, both had extensive criminal records for theft and violence. The farmer was jailed for the killing, and also sued for damages by the surviving burglar, who now suffers a permanent limp.
More recently, a father was walking home with his children when they were assailed by a gang of youths; they were taunted, insulted and threatened. Walking away from their tormentors, they thought the attack was over, but once home they found themselves under attack once more. The gang turned up at their home, banging windows, shouting abuse and threatening violence. The father called the police, hoping for some assistance. Before the police arrived (and they can be very slow to respond, if they decide to bother at all), the man decided to confront the mob himself. He chased several of them down the street, managed to catch one of them and perform a citizen’s arrest. Upon escorting the person back to his house, the police turned up, let the person go and arrested the father.
Another absurdity of British justice is that if you act to protect your property by for instance imbedding broken glass in cement on top of a wall to dissuade thieves, you can be accused and convicted of ‘setting a trap’. Further, if a thief climbed your wall in the commission of a crime and cut himself on the glass, he is perfectly within his rights to sue you; such actions have been successfully brought to bear, and are becoming increasingly common.
Ordinary people are becoming ever more frustrated by the apparent unfairness and ineptitude of the legal system; criminals seem to be afforded more rights and consideration in law than the people they prey upon. There needs to be a change in my opinion, and I think the solution lies in looking into the redefinition of the designation ‘outlaw’.
What I propose is that if a person decides to commit a certain kind of crime, for example breaking and entering, they by their own actions automatically declare themselves as outside the protection of the law, at least in part. If they are injured during the commission of a crime they should be afforded no recourse under the law. I’ve heard people argue against this type of legislation before, stating that if a burglar should fear attack by a householder, he will go armed. This is ridiculous; *burglars are already armed with the tools of their trade. A claw hammer or a pry bar makes a fearsome cudgel, a screwdriver is as lethal a stabbing implement as any knife, and a utility knife is as sharp as a surgeon’s scalpel; these are all commonly used burglary tools.
I’m not advocating a situation where a shoplifter can be legally raped, or a speeding motorist shot on sight, but there must be some sensible middle ground that can be defined in respect of crimes against property and individuals, which is fairer than the current system. There are thousands of people in this country that go to bed every night feeling unsafe and powerless in their own homes while lawbreakers roam the streets with impunity. Many burglars and thieves have hundreds of convictions, yet continue to offend, knowing that all they face if caught is community service, or at the extreme end of the scale, a few months in prison. ‘A slap on the wrist’ would be assault, after all.
It is often said that an Englishman’s home is his castle; if it is his castle, then let him defend it without fear of prosecution.
Most often, the status of outlaw was declared when a person was accused of a crime, but would not submit himself to be judged, or if he escaped before punishment was meted out. In reality it was a form of banishment; by self-imposed exile, the criminal could avoid justice, but if he returned he could be summarily executed.
The modern everyday definition of an outlaw is somebody who breaks the law. The status is conferred easily, and has no physical implications; it has become practically meaningless in real terms.
In recent times there have been several high profile cases in the UK where law-abiding citizens have acted to protect themselves, their family or their property from criminals, only to fall foul of the law themselves. In one case, a farmer shot two *armed (see asterisk below) intruders as they were carrying out a burglary at his property. One burglar was killed, the other was injured, and incidentally, both had extensive criminal records for theft and violence. The farmer was jailed for the killing, and also sued for damages by the surviving burglar, who now suffers a permanent limp.
More recently, a father was walking home with his children when they were assailed by a gang of youths; they were taunted, insulted and threatened. Walking away from their tormentors, they thought the attack was over, but once home they found themselves under attack once more. The gang turned up at their home, banging windows, shouting abuse and threatening violence. The father called the police, hoping for some assistance. Before the police arrived (and they can be very slow to respond, if they decide to bother at all), the man decided to confront the mob himself. He chased several of them down the street, managed to catch one of them and perform a citizen’s arrest. Upon escorting the person back to his house, the police turned up, let the person go and arrested the father.
Another absurdity of British justice is that if you act to protect your property by for instance imbedding broken glass in cement on top of a wall to dissuade thieves, you can be accused and convicted of ‘setting a trap’. Further, if a thief climbed your wall in the commission of a crime and cut himself on the glass, he is perfectly within his rights to sue you; such actions have been successfully brought to bear, and are becoming increasingly common.
Ordinary people are becoming ever more frustrated by the apparent unfairness and ineptitude of the legal system; criminals seem to be afforded more rights and consideration in law than the people they prey upon. There needs to be a change in my opinion, and I think the solution lies in looking into the redefinition of the designation ‘outlaw’.
What I propose is that if a person decides to commit a certain kind of crime, for example breaking and entering, they by their own actions automatically declare themselves as outside the protection of the law, at least in part. If they are injured during the commission of a crime they should be afforded no recourse under the law. I’ve heard people argue against this type of legislation before, stating that if a burglar should fear attack by a householder, he will go armed. This is ridiculous; *burglars are already armed with the tools of their trade. A claw hammer or a pry bar makes a fearsome cudgel, a screwdriver is as lethal a stabbing implement as any knife, and a utility knife is as sharp as a surgeon’s scalpel; these are all commonly used burglary tools.
I’m not advocating a situation where a shoplifter can be legally raped, or a speeding motorist shot on sight, but there must be some sensible middle ground that can be defined in respect of crimes against property and individuals, which is fairer than the current system. There are thousands of people in this country that go to bed every night feeling unsafe and powerless in their own homes while lawbreakers roam the streets with impunity. Many burglars and thieves have hundreds of convictions, yet continue to offend, knowing that all they face if caught is community service, or at the extreme end of the scale, a few months in prison. ‘A slap on the wrist’ would be assault, after all.
It is often said that an Englishman’s home is his castle; if it is his castle, then let him defend it without fear of prosecution.
