The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Even burglars have human rights

Cameron has lapsed into cheap populism.

By George Eaton Published 31 January 2010 18:35

The Tories have made it clear for some time that they hope to change the law on household defence, but David Cameron's comments today go well beyond existing party policy.

Here's what he told the Politics Show:

The moment a burglar steps over your threshold, and invades your property, with all the threat that gives to you, your family and your livelihood, I think they leave their human rights outside.

The Tory shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, had previously denied that a Tory government would provide householders with a "licence to kill". Yet Cameron's words appear to promise just that.

The principled case against this position is that it would, in theory, allow householders to murder and torture burglars and thus endorse mob rule. The pragmatic case against it is that it could actually increase the danger to the public. As Jenni Russell recently argued in the Sunday Times, burglars who are aware that any break-in could result in their death are far more likely to come armed with guns or knives and be prepared to use them first.

It is simply dishonest for large sections of the right to continue to claim that the existing law does not provide individuals with a decent right to self-defence. The law recognises that householders may, in extremis, use what appears to be excessive force. What is needed is more sensible application of the current provisions (Munir Hussain should have received a suspended sentence), rather than a dangerous new law.

In declaring that burglars "leave their human rights outside", Cameron, a supposedly "liberal Conservative", has adopted the language of the demagogue and the populist. He should retract his comments immediately.

PS: It's good to see that Sally Bercow has not been cowed by those chauvinists who deny her right to political independence. She tweets: "So burglars don't have any human rights? Definitely #brokenbritain."

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: David Cameron

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

10 comments

Fri, 2010-04-30 17:33 — piytar

This argument by Ms. Russel is completely wrong:

"As Jenni Russell recently argued in the Sunday Times, burglars who are aware that any break-in could result in their death are far more likely to come armed with guns or knives and be prepared to use them first."

Instead, burglars are more likely to avoid occupied homes aka home invasions aka "hot burglaries" if they are "aware that any break-in could result in their death."

As opposed to her "argument," I have actual studies and data to back me up, for example as discussed at length here: http://www.davekopel.com/2a/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm

Key quote: "Because potential burglars cannot tell which homes possess guns, most burglars choose to avoid entry into any occupied home, for fear of getting shot. The entry pattern of American burglars contrasts sharply with that of burglars in other nations; in Canada and Great Britain, burglars prefer to find the residents at home, since alarms will be turned off, and wallets and purses will be available for the taking."

Sun, 2010-01-31 18:56 — Mike Power (not verified)

I love the romantic notion of the burglar presented here. Yeah, he's coming with his swag bag and little mask to nick your jewels.

Listen up people!

When a man breaks into your home at three in the morning while you and your family are inside, asleep in their beds you should be worried. Very, very worried indeed.

Sun, 2010-01-31 19:13 — Emma (not verified)

In no society should the fact that one was 'very very worried' be any justification for murder or torture. We are far too eager to view criminals as sub-human - upholding human rights is not simply a 'romantic notion'.

Mon, 2010-02-01 06:25 — Zed (not verified)

By breaking into someone else's house, the burglar willingly and knowingly violated the law and his intended victim's rights. So why should the burglar be protected by said laws and rights?

Mon, 2010-02-01 11:42 — Sam (not verified)

Totally agree with Cameron. I think we should go further. People who drive dangerously should also have their human rights taken from them and should not expect the law to protect them. I, for one, would love to drag the next driver who almost runs me over from his car to give him a good kicking!

Of course I fully expect car drivers to keep a weapon on them at all times so I'll walk around with a crow bar, or similar heavy metal implement, to use in my brutal assaults, can't wait, it’ll be like a real live version of Grand Theft Auto!

Mon, 2010-02-01 14:03 — d davies (not verified)

Prison works

If convicted burglars were locked up there would not be this call for this extension to homeowners’ rights of self-defence.

Whatever the social rights and wrongs of imprisoning offenders the objective evidence is clear.
As DCS Kevin Hurley Metropolitan Police Hammersmith Borough Commander has said, ‘The best way to stop someone dealing a Class A drug is to keep them in prison.’

The rational evidence is overwhelming.
The main points, which can be found in reports from the Home Office, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Civitas, are:
1. For every criminal behind bars there are on average 140 fewer crimes committed every year. Offenders who admitted a drug problem committed an average of 257 offences per year.
2. The annual saving in social and economic costs for each criminal in prison is £280,000.
3. The full cost of putting an offender behind bars is £65,000.
4. The annual cost of keeping a criminal in prison is £26,000.

This shows that prison is cost effective and it works, if only to potentially save very many victims of criminals.

The remaining question is ‘How many victims must suffer before an offender is given an indefinite sentence?’

Mon, 2010-02-01 14:11 — d davies (not verified)

Quangos frustrate the will of Parliament?

The issue of homeowners' rights would not have arisen had the will of parliament as expressed in a law passed in 1999 been implemented.

It seems that four in five serial burglars convicted of their third domestic break-in have escaped serving mandatory three year prison terms since the supposed tough new laws were brought in a decade ago.
Could this be, in part at least, the responsibility Sentencing Advisory Panel? Five months after Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, told courts to hand out tough jail terms for burglars, the Sentencing Advisory Panel signalled burglars could escape a prison sentence if they are drug addicts or alcoholics.

Sentences handed down by judges and magistrates should be clear, effective and consistent and command wide public support. Those are the aims that the government bodies the Sentencing Guidelines Council and the Sentencing Advisory Panel were set up to promote.
None of these aims are actually achieved.

In February 2009 the Sentencing Guidelines Council and the Ministry of Justice abandoned a research study into the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of different sentences.

And lest anyone think this is an isolated example, recent figures show it’s the same with guns. Despite a supposedly mandatory five-year sentence three in four criminals found with a gun escape prison.

Mon, 2010-02-01 15:13 — Richard (not verified)

The laws in certain states in the USA in effect give homeowners carte blanche to shoot burglars. The rates of burglary committed whilst people are at home is therefore very low compared to the UK, with burglars admitting to be afraid of the consequences. What's wrong with that?