In the emotive Tony Martin case I believe his was convicted by the jury as his evidence differed from the forensic. It was also clear that he had mental problems and I feel that in this case he should have been found not guilty on grounds of diminished responsibility and given the appropriate treatment.

Looking at the situation of self defence it seems to me that it all there needs to be is a proper assessment of the situation by the police. I would like to see someone like the Scottish Procurator Fiscal, who can independently look at evidence and instruct further police investigation. While I accept that as a civilised society we should try and retribution from victims - it can be understandable that in the heat of the moment victims may go over the top.

Paul Odtaa, Richmond, UK

This all sounds very sensible, but the fact is that I cannot carry a knife or gun with me in order to symmetrically/justly defend myself.

Until the law addresses that contradiction the law gives very little, and the self-defender will be tempted to unreasonable force. There is a cost to freedom, and our laws do not allow for it.

Similar rights are being eroded in the US. Soon they also will not be able to claim to be a land of the free.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Anyone who breaks into your home deserves a lesser degree of legal protection than the victim - even if the burglar ends up dead. The standard of proof to be used in determining whether the victim used "excessive force" should be very, very high indeed. The fact that there is a SINGLE CASE like the one described by Phil Barlow below illustrates vividly that the current system is not working.

Nick, Seattle, USA (ex-UK)

It is said, the law has to be strict in weighing self-defence, i.e., whether or not "excessive force" was used in defence, or else there would be anarchy. However, by finessing "mens rea" of the offenders to such a fine art, and the law of evidence balanced in their favour, the legal system ensures more of the yabos get off scott free, but that is not anarchy !! It would be a mistake not to make broad allowance for the panic felt by the one under attack. The police, prosecutors and judges may see cases of intruders and muggers "daily". But that is no reason to assume that average citizens view them the same way. The trauma is real enough for one not used to violence, to over-react in order to get out of a nasty situation in the quickest time. In a "fight or flight" situation, if flight is not an option the law compels, then it must judge the fight put up realistically and not merely theoretically with benefit of hind-sight.

Kris iyer, Wellington, Newzealand.

Your argument is flawed:
1. It requires trust in the judiciary and since judges are increasing 'new age' leftists they cannot be trusted to protect the interests of the community.
2. We may trust juries, but judges can direct juries.
3. We would have to mortgage our homes for legal fees just to find out if charges will be laid. God help us if charges are laid and we have to pay for our defence. Criminals get legal aid.
4. You are referring to the isolated circumstance of protecting your home against intruders. We are more likely to encounter criminal or anti-social behaviour in public places. None of us would dare act because we may have to use force and we do not trust the justice system to recognise our right to do so. We are therefore likely to end up like the unfortunate Mr Newlove.
Straw is trying to con voters by seeming to empower them. If he genuinely intended to do anything about lawlessness and anti-social behaviour he would say so rather than engaging in this subterfuge

Barry, Canberra, Australia

A good friend of mine was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for manslaughter. He went for a night out with his wife and daughter and was set upon by a drunken youth. He hit the lad once and the lad died.
My friend is very much a live and let live person, never been in trouble with the Police. He lost his job as a surveyor of 30 years, lost his home. The stress gave his wife a nervous breakdown.
The self defence issue is far from reasonable.
If this had happened in the USA he'd have walked without a smear on his good name.

Phill Barlow, Wirral, England

Peter Hargreaves, Anecdotal is not a 'fact'. I had presumed, like you, that we were pretty much powerless but it is interesting to read Professor Slapper's article.

I would also like to know the stats on prosecutions for other offences other than catching an intruder in your home. I.e. thumping a mugger etc.

Elizabeth, Sydney ,

Professor Slapper makes it all sound very easy. The reality is very different. The person who uses force - even in self defence - is likely to face the full rigour of the law with all the stress which that entails. It is by no means certain that what we might generally call "reasonable" will actually be seen as such by a particular jury. Also, as the "allotment shed case" itself shows, even an acquittal in the criminal case does not close down the possibility of being sued.

The fact is that "Having a Go" is likely to be a very dangerous thing to do in today's climate. Even if the person who "has a go" manages to avoid being knifed, shot or merely thumped very hard; arrest and charges might follow. Who in their right minds would seriously wish to face the criminal process given the uncertainty of outcome?

Peter Hargreaves, Stockport, UK