Off to the pub last night (my cousins took me on a little crawl) and I was given to thoughts of the differences between America and Great Britain.
As a life-long expat (having left Liverpool aboard a steamship for the US in 1967) I have had a romanticized view of the UK for many years. Now, in my first visit since the late 1970s, I am spending a protracted period of time here as an adult.
There are many differences, some troublesome, some positive. One of the troublesome differences came up in a discussion last night about the whole concept of "defending one's home". I mentioned that I would have no difficulty whatsoever shooting an intruder into my home and the women in the family were horrified (the men were like "here, here"). Funny. But apparently recent decisions by magistrates in this country have made it possible to jail homeowners for defending themselves against intruders with deadly force (one can still own a shotgun here). A farmer shot two intruders a couple of years ago (one killed, one paralyzed) and was sent to prison for a couple of years. They were advancing up a stairwell and failing to respond to his challenges from the top of the stairs when he shot them. In another case, a woman stabbed an intruder with a kitchen knife and was prosecuted.
Perhaps I've lived too long in a violent society but it seems totally out of line when one cannot defend oneself against an intruder.
Another, more positive difference, was that homes here take much longer to build. They are built of stone, concrete, and brick (with steel substructures frequently) and are built to last. Completely different from the average residence in the US. The practical reasons for this are manifest in England's history as an island nation--they nearly defoliated the forests in the several hundred years where naval building was dependent on wood. So it was natural to extend the use of other materials (the pub I was in last night had its main structural beams taken from a man o' war of Charles II's era).
One wonders if this leads other cultural differences, home ownership being such a crucial part of our society.
Posted by artandscience at May 9, 2004 04:06 AMThat's fascinating; both the self-defense and the home building differences. I had no idea about either.
I'd like to find more about the reasoning (and or limits) to the gun laws. Could one be prosecuted if the intruders had intention to harm the land owner?
As for the housing, do the local London natives move as often as American's do?
Posted by: michael at May 9, 2004 08:01 AMI'll write more about the gun laws as I find out. There is a big article in today's Sunday telegraph about a chap who defended his home and friends when a "drug-crazed" intruder broke in (he used a knife on the guy). He got five years in prison.
As far as moving, the prices for homes have shot up incredibly in the last few years. So much so that the British are becoming a nation of renters--which is highly unusual. It used to be assumed that one would buy a home in the due course of events. It is how wealth was created here (rather than by business starts as in America). One reason that Maggie Thatcher stayed in power so long is that she made it possible for the lower class to buy their council houses (houses built for the low income by local municipalities).
Posted by: stefan at May 9, 2004 10:05 AM"One reason that Maggie Thatcher stayed in power so long is that she made it possible for the lower class to buy their council houses "
-------------
That's absolutely brilliant.
Yup, the Thatcher revolution's moves toward home ownership did get a lot of people into their own homes, but those homes had been government property, so it could be argued she sold off those assets for a one-time gain and the nation is back where it was: renters outnumber owners.
As for the wealth from land, I think the Duke of Westminster is one of the richest men in England, due to his holdings in the City of Westminster (picture someone owning large swathes of Manhattan).
The gun law stuff has worked to make England a pretty safe society, but there are always going to be cases where the old rules don't work so well. The instances you mention seem out of whack, but the underlying principal could be that use of deadly force to defend property isn't allowed (it's not known what the assailants were after, but most likely they were burglars).
Posted by: paul at May 9, 2004 08:53 PMI understand the selling off of the council homes is selling off government property to citizens but I still think it was probably a net positive. I feel that people are more likely to care about their homes, their community, and their fellow citizens when they have an investment to protect. With the current economic boom (at least in property prices) that has become quite a significant investment for most. This sort of wealth creation has to have some value, surely?
I take your point vis a vis protecting property with violence. That issue is certainly raised frequently in the US where shooting some bugger for stealing your car is a no-no. But there was always the idea that one's home was sacrosanct and that its violation was stepping over some sort of line. That seems to have disappeared as a worthwhile distinction.
I read the article in the paper last night and the young man in question was jailed for several reasons: (1) he stabbed the attacker in the back, (2) he pled guilty to manslaughter. I think it may have been the plea that did him in. But given the penalty for murder is life imprisonment maybe he thought the three years he was going to get for manslaughter was a better bet (in the end, the judge gave him five). I still think it sucks.
I like that Great Britain is a way safer society than the US, I just don't like the penalty for defending oneself.
Posted by: stefan at May 10, 2004 04:58 AMYeah, everybody could buy there council house...but then they were repossessed in the big recession in the early 90's. I have no intention of buying a house yet. Apart from the fact I move a lot I really don't think they are worth it. The property market has been highly inflated by the banks. There was a big scandal over here. Normally you get a mortage of 3.5 times your salary. The banks were doing under the table deals with customers to give them up to 7x their salaries. That's not sustainable. But as people had more money (so to speak) then house prices rose in line with that.
In mainland Europe (especially Italy) it's the norm to rent.
It's the case of Tony Martin that you've been talking about (farmer who shot a young thief in his house). I have great sympathy for Tony Martin as they were scumbags indeed. But there's no excuse for lethal force. If someone broke into my house they'd certainly get a good kicking, but I wouldn't take their life. Do you think North Americans are getting too used to extreme violence? But then again you do still have the death penalty. What value would you put on human life? That dude stole my fave stereo...so I blew his brains out. Does that really not ring warning bells with you?
Posted by: Gary at May 11, 2004 05:30 AMIt's not so much the stealing of the stereo (and dying for it) that bothers me. That does seem a bit over the top (though I could see shooting someone if they didn't put it down and leave post-haste).
No, it's more the issue that a home should be inviolate. That anyone violating that risks their life. I like that, I'm afraid. I want to be able to sleep soundly at night and not worry that some drug-addled miscreant can break in. I feel there is always the implicit threat of serious violence when someone breaks into an occupied home.
Especially if one has a family to protect--the thought that one might not be able to legally protect them makes me shudder. After all, I'm not about to take the time to figure out if someone just wants the stereo or is determined to do a Charlie Manson on me and my family.
Nor should I have to.
Posted by: stefan at May 11, 2004 07:04 AMOh you can legally protect them...you just can't legally kill somebody to protect them.
Funny that you'll always equate violence to it though. I always look at burglary as an opportunistic crime. I'd expect people to break into my house when I was away. I'd also expect them to run for it if disturbed. What I certainly wouldn't expect would be a knife fight or a gun battle. Is society in the US that dangerous? Or is it just a perception? Look at it from the point of view of how many people you personally know (not heard of) who have been the victims of robbery with extreme violence.
btw Stefan, your Hotmail account is full :)
Posted by: Gary at May 11, 2004 08:03 AMIt must be a cultural difference. In the US, we presume that intruders are armed (and they frequently are). Society in the US is that dangerous--it's hard to tell which is the chicken and which is the egg. Because intruders know that intrusion will frequently be met with lethal force (if the owner is home) they will often arm themselves.
Recent years have seen the advent of the "home invasion" robbery where intruders will kick down doors--knowing that a family is home--and use intimidation of the family to get them to yield their valuables. This is very often accompanied by extreme violence against the residents (at the very least they are tied up). Such home invasions have resulted in quite a few maimings and deaths.
See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/2000/01/06/NEWS423.dtl
and: http://www.tbwt.com/views/feat/feat1827.asp
and: http://www.mobmagazine.com/ManageArticle.asp?C=140&A=107
note that the middle story (about home invasions in Vancouver, Canada) is in a country with gun laws almost as strict as the UK (and a much lower crime rate than the US).
It's the coming trend. Just wait ten years and you'll see it in the UK as well.
Posted by: stefan at May 11, 2004 09:05 AM