Proper justice includes the extraction of fair vengeance from the
wrongdoer. Those who commit crime for gain should have fewer rights
than those who don't, or who only do so to protect themselves and their
property from criminals.

I don't aim to defend current levels of punishment as right or wrong.

I would go so far as to say that those committing crime for gain should have
fewer rights.

(For example, if the lad hit by Tony Martin wins his compensation case, a
large chunk of his compensation will likely be taken away for contributory
negligence).

Something which hits me quite hard at the moment is having to keep property
safe, even for those who break in and take equipment from locked cupboards -
at the moment I can be sued for any injury to them, particularly if they are
young.

But my point is that use of violence can only be justified where there is a
proportionate risk to the attacker. So shooting people dead just because
you saw them in your house is just not good enough, ever. The Daily Mail
attitude (and yes I am quoting their name, whether or not you read them,
because they have done a lot of damage by using this exact method) of
engendering limitless sympathy for someone who has suffered x or y crime,
and then encouraging vigilante attacks on said criminals with any amount of
punishment justified, has the potential to do a great deal of damage to our
country.

Especially as only the 'popular' crimes are dealt with. The 'ugly' crimes
that are so much more frequent, and do so much more damage, but which so
many more Daily Mail readers are involved in, are quietly brushed under the
carpet. So assaults are only covered in this way when they are committed by
'someone else' - asylum seekers, etc, never white lads or girls on a night
out. Etc, etc. Killing on the roads is encouraged, as being macho to stand
upto authority by drinking a few and then driving at 100mph on the way home.

Richard