Defending the Castle Doctrine: Self-Defence as a Transcendent Natural Law, By Ian Wilson LL.B and James Reed
In the quiet suburbs of Saint-Dé, France, a 50-year-old man awoke to the shattering of glass and the intrusion of five robbers into his home. Outnumbered and terrified, he grabbed a knife and stabbed one intruder in self-defence, saving his life but now facing potential attempted murder charges. This incident, reported on September 16, 2025, by Remix News, highlights a profound controversy: the limits of self-defence in one's own home. The prosecutor's push for charges starkly contrasts with the judge's leniency, raising questions about legal protections for homeowners. This essay defends the Castle Doctrine, not merely as a statutory principle, but as an embodiment of natural law. Self-defence transcends any man-made statute because it is a fundamental right rooted in the preservation of life; without it, one's existence can be arbitrarily extinguished by aggressors, rendering laws complicit in injustice.
The Castle Doctrine: A Shield for the Innocent
The Castle Doctrine, a legal principle originating in English common law with the maxim "a man's home is his castle," asserts that individuals have the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to defend themselves against unlawful intruders in their dwelling. In the United States, this doctrine is enshrined in many state laws, often extending to a "stand your ground" provision that eliminates the duty to retreat. It recognizes that the home is a sanctuary where vulnerability is heightened, especially during a nighttime invasion.
Contrast this with the French case: the homeowner, startled awake and facing five assailants, acted instinctively to protect his life. Yet, the prosecutor's pursuit of attempted murder charges ignores the immediacy of the threat. This disparity underscores how varying legal frameworks can either empower victims or victimise them further. In France, self-defence is permitted under Article 122-5 of the Penal Code, but it requires proportionality and necessity, standards that become perilously subjective when one is outnumbered and disoriented. The 2023 Montargis incident, where homeowner Cédric Gallineau wielded a medieval longsword against burglars, ended without charges, suggesting judicial discretion can align with natural justice. However, the Saint-Dé case reveals the inconsistency: why prosecute one defender while lionising another? The Castle Doctrine provides clarity, prioritising the innocent over the intruder.
Self-Defence as Natural Law: Beyond Man-Made Edicts
Natural law theory posits that certain rights are inherent to human nature, discoverable through reason and independent of positive law (statutes created by governments). Philosophers like John Locke argued that in the state of nature, individuals possess the right to life, liberty, and property, and the right to defend these against violation. Self-defence, therefore, is not a grant from the state but a pre-political imperative. Thomas Aquinas echoed this in his Summa Theologica, viewing self-preservation as a dictate of natural reason, superior to any human law that contradicts it.
In the Saint-Dé incident, the homeowner's action was a pure expression of this natural right. Awakened by violence, with no time for retreat or negotiation, he used what was at hand, a knife, to repel the threat. To charge him with attempted murder is to elevate the intruder's life above the defender's, inverting justice. Natural law demands that the aggressor's intent forfeits their claim to protection; the robbers, by breaking in, declared war on the homeowner's sanctity. Without the Castle Doctrine's robust affirmation of self-defence, laws become tools of the wicked, allowing arbitrary snuffing out of innocent lives. Imagine a world, the world of woke Australia, where homeowners must cower or flee, risking death to comply with "proportionality," with no right at all for having a self-defence weapon. Such statutes fail the natural law test, as they undermine the very purpose of society: to secure natural rights. People in Australia are not free citizens, but really only no different from slaves in ancient times as far as these rights go.
Historical precedents reinforce this. In feudal England, the doctrine emerged to protect against noble abuses, affirming the common man's dominion over his hearth. In modern terms, the doctrine prevents a "duty to retreat" from turning homes into traps. The French prosecutor's stance exemplifies the peril: it treats the defender as criminal, potentially deterring resistance and emboldening criminals. Natural law transcends this by declaring self-defence inalienable, any law curtailing it is unjust and void.
Implications and a Call for Universal Recognition
The Saint-Dé controversy is not isolated; it mirrors global debates on self-defence. In Europe, stricter gun laws and retreat duties often leave victims defenceless, as seen in the UK's lenient burglary penalties. Yet, even in France's 2023 sword-wielding hero, public sympathy aligns with natural justice, suggesting an innate recognition of the Castle Doctrine's truth.
Ultimately, self-defence transcends law because life is the foundational right. Without it, governments betray their raison d'être, allowing chaos where the strong prey on the weak. The Castle Doctrine must be championed worldwide, not as cultural variance, but as universal natural law. In the homeowner's panicked stab, we see not murder, but survival's raw imperative. To deny it is to court tyranny; to embrace it is to honour humanity's enduring spark of life.
Comments