Introduction:

         If someone were to steal a piece of bread or a gold bracelet from an individual's property, would it be justifiable for the owner to hurt them? 

​

         Merriam-Webster defines the act of defending as "to drive danger or attack away from," presumably those who bring violence to one's property or themselves (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). But that definition begs the question: at what cost do defending these beliefs come with? It is preached by many societies that one's private property and life shall be treated respectfully and acknowledged, but when these two principles clash, it poses a great conflict of which should be placed first. One might argue that an individual attains the right to exercise every caution in protecting their possessions no matter the outcome, while another may argue that a human's life holds higher value and by no means shall be harmed to any length just to defend one's valuables. This then imposes an additional question of: if plausible, to what degree should the law allow towards the defense of private property?  

​

         To approach this question, it must be viewed not only from a legal perspective but also equally through an ethical and equal judgment of the situation and how society will be reflected regarding the decision. This paper asserts that defense of property should be strictly regulated by the law and proportionate to the crime, however, if the person's life is actively being threatened, harsh injury can be authorized as an act of defense. This argument is divided into three main contentions, with the first being that a person's life is always of higher importance than possessions, the second being that the intention of the act must be considered, and the third being that implication of extreme violence out of defense can potentially risk a society fueled with violence. 

A Person's Life vs. Property:

         One of the most driving factors in considering this argument is that human life should not be compensated for with material objects. Although one might feel that his/her possessions hold esteemed worth and importance in their life, the value of a person's life outweighs the fate of a non-living item regardless. Philosopher Immanuel Kant puts this clearly, stating that respect should be given to all and “never merely as a means” (Kant, 1785/2008, p. 29). This translates to the obligation that one should first treat humankind with sincerity and acknowledgement of their worth, not with the intention of individual benefit from pursuing the person who is committing the wrongdoing. Invoking extreme harm and injury on another for stealing property only gambles the risk of exploiting the person as a tool of self-interest and greed in keeping one's property safe no matter the outcome, rather than treating them as human and approaching the person in a composed manner if the situation allows. Similarly, from a legal perspective, various laws and regulations have been put in place aligning with this idea. For instance, the UK's Crown Prosecution Services has employed the concept of “reasonable force”, advising that "the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force [an individual] can lawfully use in self-defense" (CPS, 2018, p.1). Essentially, the amount of force or injury one can inflict on another depends on the severity of the matter, such as stealing a lawnmower, which would not require as much force as an attack directed at the individual itself. The law draws a clear distinction between pure defense and morals, arguing that simply theft of property alone does not uphold injury to the accused. Real scenarios have been presented tying to this concept, such as the case of bread truck driver Jonathan Wayne Scott, who shot and killed unarmed teenager Mustafa Bearfield Jr. for stealing a lunchbox from the vehicle. Although Bearfield Jr. had committed a crime of property theft, the jury convicted Scott of manslaughter, portraying a real-life consequence resulting from the unequal and excessive force used in the crime committed (Remkus, 2018). However,  there still stands the popular argument that property holds considerable value and that, if stolen, it could diminish the potential of a person's life. For example, if an individual's vehicle is stolen, this could result in a loss of occupation or source of income due to unreliable transportation methods. While this presents a valid concern, it is in most instances not legally or morally sufficient damage to equate someone's life unless they prove a serious or immediate threat to one's own life. In many cases, it often provokes higher legal consequences, such as jail time, and more harm towards both parties by aggravating the current state of the situation further than the actual damage of the crime that has been committed. 

Studying the Intention:

         Another notable consideration in assessing this question is what the intentions behind the crimes committed truly are and how this may change what proper injury to impose out of defense. However, it’s important to first analyze the type of defense that has been exerted, either self-defense or purely property defense, both terms that are legally distinct. Self-defense refers to the protection of an individual from physical harm, while property defense is the protection of an individual’s possessions, not directly pursuing human life. U.S. laws and the UK’s prosecution service policies limit application force to situations where the person’s life is being threatened rather than just in the instance of trespassing or stealing. Intention, legally defined as mens rea, is an important consideration when deciding the outcome of the case and the fate of the prosecuted. Not every crime is equal in their severity, such as stealing a piece of bread out of survival or a gold bracelet out of greed. In the aspect of the legal system and a philosophical sense, intentions are often the turning point or point of reference on how people judge a person's actions or decisions. Drawing upon John Locke himself as a key example, he writes in the Second Treatise of Governance that a penalty must be decided "proportionate to the transgression" (Locke, 1690, Section 8).  For a fair ruling in the decision, the defendant may state their intentions behind the crime, or the jury may infer that the defendant should receive the most just and least harmful decision reflected off their crime, especially if the convicted is of high vulnerability. While stealing a piece of bread still stands as a crime, the intentions behind this are more than likely to be out of an act of desperation rather than pure cruelty and do not necessarily pose a threat; therefore, the individual should not be adhered to as one. In the current legal system, this notion, which is legally defined as a "necessity defense," is widely accepted by many courts, particularly in the 2011 case with the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation and homeless Ukrainian man Roman Ostriakov, who was charged and jailed for stealing food items from a grocery store. The court repealed his case, claiming that Ostriakov was in the "face of an immediate and essential need for nourishment," resulting in his desperation, and argued that the illegal activity conducted should successfully demonstrate the principle of creating judgment based on intention and circumstances (BBC News, 2016). While it can still be debated that no matter what the intention, a person's property is still someone's property and should be prosecuted as such, if one were to go about this route, it would eventually lead to wrongful or unbalanced penalties for crimes of different degrees of violence. Acknowledging the intention and purpose behind the crime is influential in developing a reasonable, suitable, and humane judgment for the individual facing conviction. 

Development of a Violent Society:

         Hypothetically, if the law permitted any degree of injury to another in the act of defense regardless of the circumstances, how exactly would this right most likely influence or develop society? "During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war is of every man against every man," states Thomas Hobbes in “Leviathan” (Hobbes, 1651, Ch. 13). Hobbes cautions society about what could potentially stir a war between humans over the security and protection of one's private property due to the elusive laws and guidelines on the limits of self-defense. This scenario could evolve into a disruptive and uncontrolled society where people are emotionally driven in their actions due to the unrestrained measures of injury permitted and the rise of retaliation against others rather than relying on a structured legal system. Referring to the Treaties of Governance once more, Locke emphasizes his agreement on the right to defend oneself yet also warns to do so in a way of “reparation and restraint" (Locke 1689, section 8). An injury that is deemed disproportionate and excessive goes against Locke's philosophy of controlled and proper defense, and if not regulated and enforced strictly, could create a fearful imprint on society. From a legal standpoint, laws have been enacted across state courts to combat this possibility, such as Tennessee's Moral Penal Code stating that a person is subject to prosecution for inflicting dangerous force on another in the case of defense of an individual's property and can only invoke this power under certain requirements (Protection of Property Act, 2024). By implementing legal authority and punishment towards the state's citizens, this directly targets and acknowledges the core of the argument regarding unrestrained violence, ensuring justice and diluting tension within the residing communities, preserving civil stability. These implemented laws illustrate this common theme of “controlled injury” and specify what is considered unjustifiable defense and when to apply dangerous force in terms of preventing excessive harm and cultivating a ruthless and fear-driven society. Nevertheless, some may still argue that the purpose of injury is to provide a lesson or reminder for the prosecuted and/or rather to induce fear within them to greatly discourage them from enacting such crimes. However, this not only places property or persons in terms of value but also creates the assumption that every person can analyze the situation clearly, leaving no room for misjudgment or impulsive actions. This is proven psychologically impossible by human nature due to subjectivity in perception of events, which can be influenced through "personal experiences, fears, and mental state" rather than an objective analysis (Weinstein Legal Team, 2025).  

         Before deciding the outcome of the individual committing such a crime, one should know that it is legally and morally accepted by the courts,Locke, and Hobbes, that the intentions behind a person’s actions must be considered before inflicting injuries or penalties.  From a societal view, defending beyond rationality risks contributing to a society of growing fear and brutality as violence becomes widely accepted and legal scrutiny deteriorates. And conclusively, in the event of inflicting injury in the name of defense, one shall do so in a reasonable and humane manner, acting under restraint rather than merely revengeful or harmful intention.