Protection by law.

[Ding-Dong]

This follows on from a question under the How It Works section.....

You should only be entitled to protection from the law if you abide by the law.

Discuss

[Elfin]

I think that statement is correct.  You either opt to obey the law fully or not.  If you break the law (e.g. by being an illegal immigrant, an overstayer on a student visa, an uninsured driver, a tax dodger, a DSS fraudster. a terrorist etc), then you should have no rights to protection under any other part of the law.

[Loosehead]

It's always dangerous to make a sweeping statement but I do think that in some circumstances a criminal should wave protection under the law whilst committing a crime, burglary, for example. I would like to say though how far should this be taken? I mean are you saying that it should apply to any crime? I mean should it be legal to take pot shots at speeding motorists., should we be able to linch the paper boy for stealing milk off a doorstep? You see the difficulty.

[Elfin]

Well the burglary example is an excellent one.  But when you talk about pot shots and lynchings, the person taking the pot shot would still be liable to prosecution as it is still a crime.  The emphasis here is more on whether the crimmo who had a pot shot taken at him should receive full legal protection on the basis of not being able "to have it both ways".  Perhaps talking about shooting is not the most helpful example, but you get the idea.

[kaktus]

Of course s/he should! I mean A is shoplifting , gets caught and is released but still charged with shoplifting. Then A get's robbed/raped/kicked by B, the police refuse to anything because A was a criminal. To me that's silly, the law is the law and it's not personal, besides comitting a crime has nothing to with who it's comitted against but who comits it. YOu have to get understand me here, of course it has something to with who the crime is comitted against, but that related to ie. age not personality. 

[Ding-Dong]

Consider this example - whilst in the process of committing a burglary, the burglar falls down the stairs because, for the sake of the argument, a roller skate was left at the top of the stairs thus becoming an unexpected hazard.

Should the burglar be entitled to sue you for negligence in the civil court for an injury sustained in the furtherance of a criminal act???

I'm thinking Phil Fearon here guys!!!!

[Ding-Dong]

Brendan Fearon of course - am getting my scumbags mixed up with my early 80's dance/disco wallahs - dancing tight anybody??? jeese, showing my age or what! 

[woofgang]

Its not a black and white is it? The roller skating burglar is one end of the scale, but does that mean that its okay to take a drug addict off the street and horribly torture them?

[Elfin]

No, it's not black and white but maybe it should be.   It's all about the ability to behave oneself and to respect the law of the land.

I would like to treat law breakers of all kinds in the same way as children who don't behave - i.e. they should largely be ignored when they are bleating on, and certainly should not be engaged with or receive any benefits of any kind.

[jake-the-peg]

I believe the actual legal principal works the other way around.

Rather You are entitled to break the law in order to prevent a greater crime being committed.

So you would be permitted to steal a car in order to prevent a murder but you may not shoot somebody to prevent them stealing a car.

Ding-Dongs suggestion would open vendettas and endless arguements of who broke the law first and thus relinquished their right to protection. OK if you fancy life in the wild west.

Incidently this defence was sucessfully claimed by the group that vandalised the hawk fighter jets bound for Indonesia. They claimed that they acted to prevent them being used to kill innocents in East Timor. To the judge's fury they were acquitted.