In April last year, a Norfolk (England) farmer called Tony Martin was convicted of the murder in August 1999 of Fred Barras, a 16 year old boy who had entered his property with another man, a gypsy, with the intention of burgling it. He was sentenced to life imprisonment (and two other sentences to run concurrently, relating to possession of a firearm and wounding with intent to kill).

The judge, in sentencing Martin, said "The law is that every citizen is entitled to use reasonable force to prevent crime. Burglary is a crime and a householder in his own home may think he is being reasonable but he may not be reasonable and that can have tragic consequences."

Martin was unrepentant. He had been repeatedly burgled and had come to hate gypsies and travellers. The law had failed to protect him and his farm from intruders, so he took the law into his own hands. Many people were delighted he was sentenced to life in prison. Many others, in particular landowners and farmers, were horrified that a man could not defend his own property against burglars.

The right to own a gun is strictly limited in Britain, following the massacre of schoolchildren in 1996 in Dunblane, Scotland (just after our ex-head of music, Peter Onslow, moved to Dunblane from Aiglon).

The American constitution, by contrast, enshrines the right to bear arms (possess and be prepared to use a lethal weapon) in its constitution. The Second Amendment says :

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Since that massacre, in England, in America, in Australia, in Belgium and doubtless in many other countries, massacres have occurred which have made countries question their own gun laws. California, at least has passed state laws restricting the possession and use of guns, probably setting the trend for other states.

Several questions are raised by all this, both particular and general :

• Under what circumstances is it right to use violence - perhaps even violence to the death? Most countries allow killing in self-defence, providing such use of violence is reasonable to achieve its end. Most countries also allow you to use violence to defend another person. But it is certainly illegal in Britain to use lethal violence to defend your property (so an Englishman's home is no longer his castle). It is illegal to set dangerous booby traps to deter trespassers in England (indeed, trespass is generally not a crime in England, though there have been recent changes to this law). Most states accept that violence is justified in war - and the Roman Catholic church even has a doctrine on the 'just war'.

• If you answered 'never' to the above question, you might call yourself a pacifist. You might believe that violence is always wrong. If so, what problems are there for you, as a pacifist? How easy is the pacifist life to live? Do you think, by being a pacifist, you might allow greater crimes to happen?

• In the particular case of Tony Martin, was it right for him to use violence? To find the full details of the case, check out the web link at the top of the page.

• Do honest, law-abiding people have a right to own and use weapons? If you think they do, do you think it is permissible to take that right away from them (by repealing the Second Amendment, for example) because of the actions of a few lunatics?

• In general, to what extent can a state justly protect its people by taking rights away from them? The right to smoke, to take drugs, to do what you want with your own body, to own a dangerous dog, to drive while drunk &c.?

GP

Send comments or longer contributions for publication here to NOTICE BOARD. If your browser will not accept mail links, please e-mail us directly at week6@guypadfield.com