Comments on: The Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Bill 2010

By: Bwarp

Bwarp — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:52:21 +0000

“it is crucial that money is put into drug rehabilitation centres, methadone clinics, and creating employment and social amenities for young people.”

Ehh, don’t know if you noticed but that’s been done already. Sure, it’s got some results but you can only go so far with these measures, and there’ll always be a particularly scummy subculture who will actively choose not to avail of them.
Basically you can only do so much for scumbags before the law takes over.

“The rhetoric of protection surrounding this legislation points up the importance in criminal law reform, in playing on, in this case, elderly people’s sense of insecurity and in shaping the public’s sense that ‘something is being done’ about violent burglaries.”

It’s fallacious to suggest that only the elderly are affected by burglaries. Anyone of any age or status can be affected by burglaries tbh, if they’re particularly nasty ones. Personally i’d be thrilled if this legislation passed, it is my firm belief that, if you enter my house uninvited, you leave your human rights at the door!

By: Diane

Diane — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:36:13 +0000

I agree with Mickelodian, why should anyone retreat from defending hearth and home. This clarifies that an Irish home is the occupants castle, and quite rightly so! I think the Bill does not go far enough, no one should have any excuse for entering on to property, save for a Garda with a lawful warrant. Why should the provisions of the Bill only apply to ‘burglars’, why not threatening debt collectors, why not employees of The State who act without regard to the Law? My home is my castle,and it shall be defended as such, in all cases.

By: Mickelodian

Mickelodian — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 17:52:14 +0000

Seriously, as far as I can see the U-Turn in legislation is ‘well overdue’. Why any homeowner should be in fear of what an ‘intruder’ might do after the fact… or even worry if they are standing in their kitchen with the ‘intent’ to commit a crime is frankly beyond me. Why else would they be there? The average citizen does not understand the law well enough to understand they are meant to retreat and therefore rarely would do so anyway.

This hands back the instinctive right for all people to protect themselves, their family their property and their guests and to do so as they think is reasonable. Yes some think it might be reasonable to warn the intruder first. I certainly would not think that this is either a reasonable or even ‘safe’ way to proceed. I’ll be protecting my family with ‘extreme’ prejudice to an intruder. With this new bill in the process of becoming law intruders will be aware that their ‘protection’ by law is now revoked. Their back will be against the wall and for that reason they are now unpredictable.

And for that reason I will continue to keep a samurai sword on my bedroom wall for just such occasions. I think it reasonable that if I ‘fear’ there is an intruder and am subsequently faced with such an individual then it is 100% reasonable that I would use it straight away. I certainly would not be bothering to consider the intentions of the intruder or to enter into a discussion with such and individual. They knew the risks, they have more information than I do, I’m the one who has little information in my own home…so I’ll sort that out very quickly by ensuring the intruder either stops intruding…or stops breathing!

I feel it would certainly be unreasonable for somebody to think I would not respond with force for the ‘only’ information I have is that an unwelcome intruder is present in my home. There is nobody that cannot confirm to me they are unarmed. So I’ll stop them and if that results in their death well I won’t be too bothered!