The frothing-mouthed Daily Mail does raise sensible issues occasionally, and this is one of them.
From a legal viewpoint, what the homeowner did was indeed against the law: chasing down a housebreaker after gaining the upper hand, then giving him a good kicking. Good on yer, Mr Hussain. But the judges weighed the application of the law, versus the prosecution of justice… and decided on statute rather than circumstances. Which is wrong.
Since we know the law is not a perfect model of justice, and judges are by definition supposed to dispense justice (and have great leeway on sentencing), can judges not be given the leeway to ignore the law in such circumstances?
Just how far should we follow the rules, when dealing with people who have no sense of feeling bound by them?
It’s a dilemma mirrored in every terrorist case, every ASBO, indeed every middle-class person’s interactions with the Police State the UK is fast becoming. If you can’t win by playing by the rules, what’s the point of having rules?
Well, the attackers went into someone’s house armed with blades and ropes. By any moral standard, such individuals have signed away any right to be treated fairly. Mr Hussain did what most men would do in such a threatening situation: HE WHACKED THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF THE BASTARD. Sorry, but that’s what real justice is.
(I’m not sure how, exactly, the attackers got off so lightly. Any crime involving a blade is supposed to be a 2year minimum sentence these days. But that’s another matter.)
I hope Mr Hussain gets out of jail quickly. And his attackers do something else soon that puts them inside. But beyond that, I hope this makes judges take a second look at what they’re really there for. Justice ain’t law.