When laws are referenced by Clint Eastwood movie lines, it’s probably a good idea to reconsider the policy. In the United States, “Castle Doctrine”, or “Make my Day Law”, gives liberal scope for homeowners to use violence against burglars as seen fit. Meanwhile, in Britain, where it’s legal to kill a burglar if you have to, but not if you want to, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge has just overturned the sentence of Munir Hussein, who chased a burglar down the street and gave him brain damage. The issue is delicate, mediating self-defense and personal revenge; consequentially, there’s an uncertain policy in Britain, and a dubious one in the United States. Self-defense is a priority, but a firm line must be drawn to prevent the burgled from simply taking the law into their own hands.

The United Kingdom law enables homeowners to commit as much violence as necessary, but only in self-defense (e.g. you may knock a burglar unconscious, but not continue to beat him whilst he is harmless), which seems justified. However, it came under question when Hussein continued to attack once the burglar had left the home. Although strictly against the law, Hussein’s family had just been tied up and he acted under extreme distress and anxiety. To pursue a man down the street is not technically self-defense, but under the exceptional conditions, it’s clear that Hussein’s act should not be treated as a typical act of violence.

Over on the other side of the pond—i.e. our own blessed soil— the presence of a burglar seems to render any form of violence acceptable, and shows the dangers of too generous allowances in the name of self-protection. In the majority of states, a form of Castle Law is permitted which does not require crime victims to avoid violence, but essentially enables homeowners to “stand their ground” and attack burglars simply upon their intrusion into the home. The policy ensures that burglary is repayable by death, and has led to several questionable homicides that cannot be construed as self-defense. In 2006 a 72-year-old client threatened a 23-year-old prostitute with a gun. She grabbed the gun from him, and did not flee, but instead chose to shoot the man. Although clearly under stress, why did the young woman need to kill an old man who was obviously no longer a threat? Even worse is the story of a man shooting a neighbor who banged on the door loudly during a dispute over garbage and, apparently, attempted to put his foot inside the man’s “castle.”

The threatening 72-year-old committed a serious offense, but for a citizen to kill him in response is a reckless act that should not be permitted without any form of retribution. Burglary is a crime, a terrible act that inflicts trauma on its victims, even in non-violent situations. However, we live in a democracy where criminals do not forfeit their human rights; stolen goods should not be repaid with death, as the punishment does not fit the crime. Those who experience felony often feel threatened—whether during a burglary or a street robbery—but it’s unacceptable for citizens to immediately react with violence. Such mentality leads to a Wild West attitude, when the general public has more freedom to shoot and kill than the trained police.

This form of Castle Law underemphasizes the importance of life in the face of home security, but it also encourages violence overall. Although some burglars may be deterred by homeowners with guns, others will simply come armed; there is almost twice the percentage of violent burglaries in the U.S. than in the U.K.. Thus it’s clear that a limit on defense against burglars must be drawn.

Self-defense should always be legitimate when homeowners have direct reason to believe that their life or safety is in danger, and express attacks from burglars ensure that self-protection is certainly permissible. Meanwhile, to shoot a man who steps foot in your garage is a crime, according to the age-old mantra that two wrongs don’t make a right, and should be dealt with accordingly. But in the spectrum between the two extremes, policy is less certain. Certain acts of violence from homeowners (such as to chase a burglar down the street) seem unnecessary, but under the circumstances are understandable and should not be compared to wanton acts of brutality. Self-defense is not an exact science, and while we should be wary of widespread rules condoning excessive violence, there should also be a case-by-case awareness of the stressful conditions of the burgled. No just system on this matter can make generalized rules, but in an age when few live in castles, our legal system should also evolve.

Olivia M. Goldhill ’11, a Crimson editorial writer, is a philosophy concentrator in Kirkland House.