From: lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:58:33 GMT
	<1992Aug14.181611.23008@informix.com>
	<1992Aug17.155648.28224@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Aug19.163045.374@informix.com>
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <1992Aug19.163045.374@informix.com> davek@informix.com (David Kosenko) writes:
 > In article <1992Aug17.155648.28224@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> 
 > 	oscar@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Oscar DeMartino) writes:
 > >In article <1992Aug14.181611.23008@informix.com> 
 > 	davek@informix.com (David Kosenko) writes:
 > >>Sorry, but this doesn't wash.  First of all, we have the concept of
 > >>guilty until proven innocent, generally by a jury of your peers.  Thus
 > >>if someone breaks a law, it is up to the system to find them guilty.
 > >>Someone breaking into your house *still* has the right to due
 > >>process under the law.  Sure, if they threaten your life, you can
 > >>shoot/whatever them in self defence.  The onus is on *you*, though, to
 > >>be able to prove your life was threatened.  This does not always lead
 > >
 > >	Please explain to me why in the first case, the someone breaking
 > >	into my home, they will still have "the right to due
 > >	process under the law" but if I shoot someonein self denfense
 > >	then "The onus is on *you* to be able to prove your life
 > >	was threatened"?  This seems to be a bit of a double standard.
 > 
 > Not at all.  You, too, have the right to due process of law.  You have the
 > right to prove that you acted in self-defence, and if the jury agrees, you
 > will be acquitted.  Similarly, the burglar has the right to be tried by
 > a jury of his/her peers, and if they find him/her guilty, they will be
 > punished.

This sounds asymmetric, when it shouldn't.  Here's the way it's
supposed to work: If the alleged burglar is caught and arrested (as
opposed to being killed by you), they can be brought up on charges of
burglary, and the state will be required to prove that they committed
the crime.  The defendent is free to sit back and do absolutely
nothing---i.e.  there is no burden on the defendent at all---though if
the state has any evidence to support their case, the defendant will
probably want to mount some sort of defense.  But even if there is no
defense, if the state fails to prove the allegations the defendent
goes free.

Now suppose you kill the burglar instead.  Obviously, no charges are
filed against the burglar, but let's say you get charged with
manslaughter.  The situation is precisely the same: the state is
required to prove their charges, else you go free.  You are not
obligated to prove you shot the burglar in self-defense, though if
there's clear evidence that you shot the burglar, offering no defense
whatsoever would probably not be a very good strategy.  But you, like
the alleged burglar, are perfectly free to sit back passively and
watch the proceedings go by, and if the state fails to prove its
manslaughter charges, you go free.

Your (and the alleged burglar's) right to due process includes, among
other things: the right to face your accuser, the right to a trial by
jury of your peers, the right to mount a defense if you choose to do
so, etc.  You both have that right.
--
Andy Lowry, lowry@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7925
IBM Research, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598