Emily’s Workshop

What injury should one person be permitted to inflict on another in the defence of private property?

What is private property? 

Although the concept of private property has evolved throughout long human history ––ever since the beginning of the neolithic revolution and the rise of sedentary lifestyle –– it was not until 1689 that private property was recognized as an integral part of human rights by the British philosopher John Locke.[1] That shift made people think differently about land and resources—what was once shared communal goods started to be claimed by wealthy individuals. But it wasn’t until the 17th century, when the British philosopher John Locke wrote in his book Two Treatises of Government to describe private property as a natural human right along with life and liberty, the significance of private property was widely accepted.[2] Locke argued that people don’t just own goods because of power or tradition, but because they put their own work into it.[3] His ideas had a profound impact on modern political policy and school of thought, affecting how we understand and protect private property today. But even if private property is seen as a basic right, there’s still a tough question: how far should someone be allowed to go to defend it? Different laws, like the Castle Doctrine, give different answers, and real-life cases show how tricky this issue can be. This essay looks at the ideas behind private property, how it’s treated in the law, and what it means when defending it leads to conflict or harm.

The role of private property in society

While John Locke was the staunch advocate of private property being an integral part of natural rights, he was not the first philosopher to define the term or to explain the impact of private property in society. The concept of private property, broadly understood as the individual’s legal or moral right to own and control resources, has evolved significantly through history and has been interpreted differently by different philosophers. From Plato’s skepticism about private ownership—favoring communal property among the ruling guardians to promote social harmony—to Aristotle’s defense of private property as essential for civic virtue and order, the philosophical debate highlights property’s complex social role.[4] Later, Thomas Aquinas justified private property as a means of stewardship that benefits both individuals and communities, while Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasized a balanced approach, recognizing private property as a political institution rooted in reciprocity and justice.[5] [6] In the modern era, John Locke famously defined private property as the extension of one’s labor, asserting it as a fundamental human right. This essay examines these philosophical perspectives, the distinctions between types of property and considers the legal and ethical challenges that arise when defending private property rights leads to conflict or harm.

Castle Doctrine

The phrase “An Englishman’s home is his castle” encapsulates a long-standing belief that the home is a place of absolute personal sovereignty—a space where one should be legally protected from intrusion.[7] This idea forms the basis of the Castle Doctrine, a legal principle that allows individuals to use force, including deadly force, to defend themselves against intruders in their home. Rooted in English common law and expressed as early as 1628 by Sir Edward Coke in his Institutes of the Laws of England, the doctrine emphasized that a man’s home was his “safest refuge.”[8] Over time, this notion became embedded in both legal thought and cultural identity, particularly in Britain and later in the United States. In America, the Castle Doctrine evolved into a more formalized legal protection, adopted by many states in legislation that affirms the right to defend one’s dwelling from unlawful entry without the obligation to retreat. 

Unlike its English counterpart, which historically emphasized the right to prevent state intrusion but did not necessarily permit violent self-defense beyond reason, the U.S. version places more legal weight on the individual’s perception of threat.[9] It allows a homeowner to use deadly force if they believe they are in imminent danger, and in many jurisdictions, there is no duty to retreat within the home. The U.S. interpretation of the Castle Doctrine also gave rise to broader self-defense laws, notably “Stand Your Ground” laws, which extend similar principles beyond the home.[10] These laws permit individuals to use deadly force in any place they are legally allowed to be, provided they reasonably perceive a threat, again with no duty to retreat. This legal extension has sparked considerable debate because it removes spatial boundaries and relies heavily on subjective judgment of danger. Although the Castle Doctrine is confined to the home and the defense of property, Stand Your Ground laws apply more broadly and have been associated with controversial cases that question the limits of justified self-defense. In contrast, some legal systems around the world still follow principles that impose a duty to retreat or that restrict the use of deadly force even within the home, suggesting a fundamentally different legal philosophy from the U.S. model. 

Applications

Implementation of the Castle Doctrine could be seen from the famous landmark court cases in the case of State v. Bobbitt (1983) in Florida, United States.[11] In this case, Elsie Virginia Bobbitt fatally shot her husband after he launched a violent and unprovoked assault on her inside their shared home.[12] Despite the clear history of domestic abuse and the immediate threat she faced, Mrs. Bobbitt was initially convicted of manslaughter, and the trial court refused to instruct the jury on her right not to retreat from her home under the Castle Doctrine. Upon appeal, the trial judge reversed course and granted a new trial, acknowledging that the instruction should have been given. However, the Florida Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Castle Doctrine was inapplicable because the attacker and the victim were co-occupants of the same home.[13] This interpretation raised significant controversy, highlighting the complexities surrounding self-defense claims in domestic settings. While the Castle Doctrine is often cited to justify the use of deadly force against intruders without a duty to retreat, Bobbitt shows that its protection can be significantly limited when the threat comes from within the household. The decision underscores a central tension in American law: the balance between recognizing one’s right to safety within their own home and navigating the legal implications when both the aggressor and defender share the same domestic space. It also reflects the challenges courts face in applying historically rooted legal doctrines to modern realities, particularly in cases of domestic violence where rigid interpretations of property-based self-defense may fail to protect vulnerable individuals.[14]

While the original Castle Doctrine was never intended to justify actions inside the home that would be illegal elsewhere, some modern interpretations—especially in American legal contexts—have blurred that line. High-profile cases like the 2000 trial of Tony Martin in the UK, in which he was convicted for shooting an intruder, illustrate that even within “castle”-based legal systems, there are still boundaries on what kind of force is considered reasonable.[15] The incident took place when Martin, living alone in a remote farmhouse plagued by repeated break-ins, shot two intruders with an unlicensed firearm, killing 16-year-old Fred Barras and injuring Brendan Fearon.[16] Crucially, the court found that the intruders were fleeing at the time of the shooting and thus no longer posed an immediate threat, making Martin’s response disproportionate.[17] His conviction for murder was later reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility, as psychological evaluations revealed Martin’s paranoid personality disorder, but the case still set a precedent in UK law.[18] It emphasized that even in one’s own home, lethal force must only be a last resort used in genuine self-defense. The case generated public outcry and calls to strengthen homeowners’ rights, with many sympathizing with Martin as a victim of a failed justice system that seemed to protect criminals more than citizens. Nonetheless, British law maintained its stance that defensive actions must be proportionate to the threat faced. Unlike jurisdictions with more expansive self-defense laws, such as certain U.S. states under the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground statutes, UK law preserves a strict duty to use only necessary and reasonable force. The Martin case remains a touchstone in legal and moral debates over property defense, illustrating the fine line between self-protection and retaliation, and reinforcing the idea that private property rights, while important, do not override the sanctity of human life—even that of an intruder. 

In East Asia, South Korea presents an even more restrictive and punitive stance on protection of private property as most East Asian countries lack the concept of Castle Doctrine unlike Europe and America. A notable case in 2014 involved a 22-year-old homeowner, Mr. Choi, who encountered a 55-year-old intruder in his house during the early morning hours.[19] After initially confronting the burglar and subduing him with his fists, Choi continued to strike the intruder repeatedly using his feet, a metal clothes-drying rack, and even a belt.[20] As a result the 55-year-old intruder received severe brain damage and spent subsequent 6 months in hospital in state of coma until his death.[21] While Choi argued that his actions were in self-defense, the court disagreed. The appellate court found him guilty of injury resulting in death and sentenced him to 18 months in prison with a three-year suspension, along with 240 hours of community service.[22] The judges emphasized that the initial act of self-defense may have been justified, but the subsequent use of force—after the intruder had already been subdued—exceeded the boundaries of lawful defense and reflected retaliatory intent rather than protective necessity.[23] This case exemplifies South Korea’s legal stance, where defensive actions must be strictly proportional and limited to what is immediately necessary, regardless of the emotional or situational context. Unlike in the U.S., where subjective fear can sometimes justify lethal force, Korean courts maintain a much narrower interpretation of justified violence, reinforcing the idea that property protection does not override the principle of minimal harm.

Ultimately, the Castle Doctrine and its related legal interpretations raise ongoing questions about the relationship between property, personal safety, and state authority. As policy makers continue to interpret and revise these laws, the core tension remains the same: how to balance an individual’s right to defend their space with the broader need to prevent disproportionate violence in the name of that defense.

The right to private property has been at the core of legal and philosophical discourse for centuries, evolving from abstract moral reasoning into concrete legal protections. Philosophers like Locke, Aristotle, and Rousseau have shaped how we perceive ownership—not just as possession, but as a reflection of labor, order, and social justice. Today, laws like the Castle Doctrine and Private Property Defence laws reflect these ideas but also reveal the tensions in practice: between safety and excess, between justice and retaliation. While countries like the United States prioritize individual sovereignty—even endorsing deadly force in defense of one’s home—others, such as South Korea, enforce strict limits on what counts as “reasonable” self-defense.[24] These contrasting approaches highlight the difficulty of creating laws that both protect individuals and prevent abuse. Ultimately, the defense of property is not just a legal matter, but a question of societal values: how much force are we willing to justify in the name of ownership—and what does that reveal about the kind of society we aim to build?

Endnotes

1. “Private Property.” Private Property – an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics, http://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/private-property. Accessed 28 June 2025. 
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid. 
4. Libertarianism.Org, http://www.libertarianism.org/articles/aristotles-arguments-private-property. Accessed 28 June 2025. 
5. Libertarianism.org. (n.d.). https://www.libertarianism.org/articles/aristotles-arguments-private-property
6. Siroky, David S., and Hans-Jörg Sigwart. “Principle and prudence: Rousseau on private property and inequality.” Polity, vol. 46, no. 3, July 2014, pp. 381–406, https://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2014.13. 
7. “An Englishman’s Home Is His Castle – Meaning & Origin of the Phrase.” Phrase Finder, 20 Dec. 2023, http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/an-englishmans-home-is-his-castle.html.
8. Ibid.
9. “Castle Doctrine vs Stand Your Ground Laws in New Jersey – Updated Aug 2024.” Lustberg Law, http://www.lustberglaw.com/blog/castle-doctrine-vs-stand-your-ground-in-new-jersey/. Accessed 28 June 2025.
10. Ibid.
11. State v. Bobbitt, 415 so. 2d 724 (Fla. 1982), ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2137&context=lr. Accessed 28 June 2025. 
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Burchell, Helen. “Tony Martin, Who Shot Burglar Fred Barras at Norfolk House, Dies.” BBC News, BBC, 2 Feb. 2025, http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rq4evqq75o. 
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. “‘침입한 도둑 때려 사망’ 항소심도 집주인에 ’유죄’(종합).” 연합뉴스, 이재현, 29 Jan. 2016, http://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20160129151651062. 
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Posted by The Joongang, et al. “도둑 뇌사 사건, 20대 집주인 과한 폭행으로 징역.” 중앙일보, 24 Oct. 2014, http://www.joongang.co.kr/article/16217501. 
24. “‘침입한 도둑 때려 사망’ 항소심도 집주인에 ’유죄’(종합).” 연합뉴스, 이재현, 29 Jan. 2016, http://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20160129151651062.