"It takes courage to burgle someone's home"

Scroll to see replies

Before I post this let me make it absolutely clear that I think burglary is a crime and causes not only monetary and physical loss but mental trauma in many cases from the feeling of violation. It cannot be justified.

However, this fuss reveals something of a mass delusion. The word "courage" (and its synonym "brave") have a specific meaning. According to the Oxford Dictionary it means:
"the ability to do something that frightens one"

Now I don't know whether forcing your way into someone's house is frightening. It probably is a bit, especially if you think they may be there. In that case it is brave.

The problem here is that everyone is acting as if "courageous" means "morally good" or "justified" or some other such thing. Yes, normally courage is a good trait to have but that doesn't mean that every time you use it you are doing something good. Is it impossible to be both courageous and evil?

We seem to have been conditioned to think that only good people can be courageous and all courageous people are good. But this is not really the case.

Yes, the judge probably shouldn't be praising any aspect of a crime. That seems kinda stupid really. But Cameron coming along and saying "no he wasn't courageous he was cowardly" is also stupid. If a criminal genius had broken through some extremely complex security system and the judge had described him as a genius you wouldn't expect Cameron to declare "no he wasn't clever he was stupid." This ought to be no different.

Original post by Darth Stewie

People need to calm the **** down over this, the use of the word courage was a mistake and in hindsight I'm sure the judge would have phrased his statement differently however it doesn't change the fact that this guy developed his drug addiction in prison, to feed that addiction he burgled a number of houses which is something which a lot of people would never do and shows the levels of desperation and desire to feed said addiction. Since the burglaries the guy is clean, he confessed to police, gave up drugs and I'm guessing showed considerable evidence that he was sorting his life out. The Judge was completely right in avoiding a prison sentence and he didn't "walk free" he was given a two-year supervision order with drug rehabilitation, 200 hours unpaid work and a one-year driving ban.

Maybe rather than investigating the use of a word time would be better spent investigating how people are managing to develop drug addictions in prison?

I'd agree if the judge didn't let him go, but it does seem like "Okay, you did something bad, but you were brave so I'll let you go", i.e. the 'goodness' of being brave outweighed the badness of the crime.

Reply 21

zaliack

Original post by Hopple

I think the judge "let him go" because prison would have been negative for society if he just developed his addiction again.

Reply 22

UniOfLife

Original post by L i b

I was agreeing with you right till this point.

Cameron had not seen the comments in context and acknowledged that he would have to do so in order to make any sort of criticism of the judge's view. Which I think is very well measured.

There is an element of cowardliness in sneak-thievery, especially when you're violating someone's home to do it. I do not believe, however, the courage and cowardliness are direct opposites: as such, an act can have elements of both.

I'm not sure which bit of my post you disagree with. If it's that burglary is cowardly, then I take no stance on that really. I've never felt the urge to break into someone's house so can't comment on how much courage it takes.

If its my comment that Cameron was stupid in his reply then I stand by that. He was right to say that he hadn't seen the comments in context etc. But he was being stupid and politic when he automatically contradicted the notion that a burglar might be courageous. That showed, I think, that he was falling for the error of equation "brave" with "good". Which is nonsense.

If asked, he should have said that burglary is wrong and immoral and maybe make a general comment about not praising criminals.

Original post by Hopple

From the brief look at the reports that I read the judge was following the advice given to him in a pre-trial sentencing report that someone else had written. He also gave some reasoning about how the guy in question had got hooked on drugs in prison and committed the crimes to pay for his drugs but had since got himself off them. It wasn't because he was brave.

Reply 23

Hopple

Original post by zaliack

I think the judge "let him go" because prison would have been negative for society if he just developed his addiction again.

Original post by UniOfLife

Fair enough if that's the case. But it's being reported in such a way that makes it seem the burglar's bravery was in some way contributory to the judge's decision to release him.

Reply 24

zaliack

Original post by Hopple

Fair enough if that's the case. But it's being reported in such a way that makes it seem the burglar's bravery was in some way contributory to the judge's decision to release him.

Welcome to the world of sensationalist journalism.

Reply 25

Hopple

Original post by zaliack

Welcome to the world of sensationalist journalism.

Why did you think the judge was being sarcastic?

Reply 26

zaliack

Original post by Hopple

Why did you think the judge was being sarcastic?

Mainly because of the "Yet somehow, bolstered by drugs and desperation, you were prepared to do that". If he was used to working in a criminal court, he would know that most burglaries are connected with drugs, so it seems out of character to mention that only once. Judges do have a habit of playing with words, I'm guessing it just didn't come out the right way this time.

Reply 27

Heavenly_Blues

I'd say it's pretty cowardly, sneaking around to steal something when the rightful owner isn't able to protect it.

Reply 28

username932763

It's courageous in the way you might say "you've either got to be really brave or really stupid to do x activity."

By which I mean, I certainly wouldn't think about breaking into someone's house, not only because it would be wrong, but also because I wouldn't want to run the risk of being caught, finding out they have a huge guard dog/the house owner is a professional at MMA/any other bad outcome that may arise from breaking into someone's house.

But the word courage just implies that the action is also honourable and should be celebrated, which obviously isn't the case with burglary.

And obviously one could suggest that the real courageous thing to do would be to try hard and find another way to earn a living other than stealing off of others, with burglary being the "coward's way out".

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 29

KingMessi

Original post by Darth Stewie

Now, see - this is important. This makes the world of difference from him actually being able to walk free. The typical poor standards of the Daily Fail.

Reply 30

username945663

Hmm he's been released near my home. :diep:

I agree with UniOfLife's post.

Reply 31

MetropolisBoy

People are overreacting imo, I'd say lets give the judge in question the benefit of the doubt because I don't really think he is saying what the burglar did was moral or just. However, to have the burglar walk away is insane and dangerous.

Reply 32

InnerTemple

Original post by UniOfLife

...

I am minded to agree with the above. However when we consider that the Daily Mail and the Sun are two of the most read papers in the UK, the judge ought to have been slightly more careful with his choice of words.

I remember being in court where defence counsel was delivering a plea in mitigation. The crime was a minor theft and defence counsel reminded the court of this by stating (something along the lines of) "Sir, this was not a major theft, it was quite minor." The barrister was reprimanded by the District Judge who told him that the theft was no doubt 'major' to the victim and had no doubt caused the victim some degree of inconvenience and hurt feeling. A better way of putting the same point would be to say: "Sir, this has certainly caused the victim inconvenience, yet I would remind the court that on the facts, this is a theft on the lower end of the scale of seriousness..."

Point put short: there has to be an element of diplomacy and one must chose their words carefully.

Original post by Cassie218

Of course its not beyond stupid that a burglar walked free - The judge looked at the circumstances of the case and came to the conclusion that in this situation prison was not the best option for the burglar and the public. Britain has one of the highest incarceration rates in the EU however there is no correlating reduction in crime. Prison doesn't work. It definitely doesn't work for rehabilitating drug addictions.

Absolutely agree. It should be noted that the defendant didn't really walk free as such - he was given a sentence: one which will hopefully tackle his drug problem, which in most cases is the primary cause for offending.

Reply 33

UniOfLife

Original post by InnerTemple

Or maybe its better not to pander to those people who are unintelligent, uninformed, and always looking for an excuse to declare the justice system "broken".

Reply 34

BJP

In a sense, I guess, it is a courageous act because the burglars surely worry they will be caught, jailed, assaulted, even shot etc.

However, we as society should not be encouraging burglars and we should condemn them. In my opinion, people should also be allowed to defend their home against burglary.

I believe the judge would rephrase if given the opportunity, as he surely wasn't complimenting the burglar in the way the press are reporting.

Reply 35

InnerTemple

Original post by UniOfLife

Or maybe its better not to pander to those people who are unintelligent, uninformed, and always looking for an excuse to declare the justice system "broken".

On one level, I agree entirely. However one of the first rules of any sort of public speaking (and a rule to which the judge should have been well aware of, especially if he was a criminal practitioner) is to know your audience. That said, it would have made sense for the judge to have: phrased the comments a different way, qualified what he said or quite simply - not say it at all.

Of course, I say the above with no knowledge of what else the judge said before or after the courage comments. It may be that the judge did provide some context or explanation.

UniOfLife - I hope you see that I am not disagreeing with you as such. The sentencing remarks of the judge are not a sign of the judiciary going soft nor are they a sign of a broken justice system. However given the context in which they were aired, the judge would have been wise to have proceeded with utmost caution.