Direct Democracy proposal for Law - Civil and Criminal

Burglary of private property

Should the People's Administration install direct democracy, we propose total immunity from prosecution of physical assault or threat of physical assault [armed or unarmed] to be afforded to property owners and extended to employees, family, friends and visiting guests. This means that should a person make a pre-meditated decision to intrude into a property, they will at the same time, be making a pre-meditated decision to fore-go their own legal entitlements regarding protection against physical assault of their own person. It is also hoped that the knowledge of this law will act as a deterrent in itself.

The People's Administration does not accept that a reasonably minded property owner is likely to be able to make reasonable decisions during such an event, if they are present. The added pressure of obligations to protect employees, family members and guests makes this even more unlikely. Therefore, we believe that it is unreasonable to expect someone in this situation to be able to rationalise to any degree – let alone to be able to assess being proportionate in any response.

Even if it was possible to assess and to react proportionately in such circumstances, a proportionate response may not be enough to afford protection to the self or of others. It is therefore entirely acceptable to the People's Administration that those under attack or threat of potential attack in their own property may well react disproportionately.

Another factor that the People's Administration takes into consideration is that it is not likely that the property owner will know of the intentions of an intruder and if only for this reason, we believe that an instantaneous act of revenge in such a circumstance is also an act of self defence because the property owner may well often be fearing the intruder returning. We also believe that any anger that one may experience in such circumstances [especially if witnessing harm or the threat of harm to family members] would be an understandable incitement to anger.

How can it be acceptable and legal that the courts may enact revenge in passing sentence, but the people are criminalised if they do so themselves when in the moment?

The current laws only allow for a proportionate response in self defence and judges [who generally have no understanding of the trauma of such an event] do not apply sentences that they are legally able to when it comes to sentencing the burglar.

The former government Home Office has recommended to all judges that they try to avoid incarceration in the sentencing of burglars so as to reduce the prison population and, as this was made public by the media, there is now even less of a deterrent to the intruder.

The People's Administration believes that the current laws and their application by judges are now actually an encouragement to burglars - not a deterrent.

Voting for direct democracy outside a general election

Direct Democracy - Audio

It is up to us, the people [not the politicians] to use the power that we have always had, to choose to implement direct democracy as soon as possible.

This is not a protest campaign.

In accordance with Magna Carta Article 61 and with UN UDHR Article 21 and with all of the democratic principals up-held by the UN [which the UK has signed-up to], the people already have the lawful right to reform to direct democracy - even outside a general election.