burglar -- bow & arrowed

Do they put them in jail over there like in the UK?
I refer to the disgusting result of the case involving Tony Martin who was jailed for shooting a burglar after being repeatedly burgled.

In my judgement a homeowner cannot be in the wrong in any contact a burglar.
Whether the burglar is in his home at the time of the assault or running away.

.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8dMH5QgzcE&feature=youtu.be

Some detail on the Tony Martin case for those that don't know it.  Don't have a great deal of sympathy for the victims but not entirely sure that the conviction was that "disgusting". 

Murder trial[edit]
On 23 August 1999, Martin was charged with the murder of Barras, the attempted murder of Fearon, "wounding with intent to cause injury" to Fearon, and "possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life".[8] Martin did not hold a valid shotgun certificate (licence), let alone the more restrictive Firearms Certificate he would have needed to possess the Winchester pump-action shotgun that held a maximum of five rounds.

English law permits one person to kill another in self-defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used.[12] The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm".[13] However, the jurors found Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority.[14]

He was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommended minimum term to serve of 9 years, reduced to 8 years by the Lord Chief Justice.

Appeal[edit]
An appeal was considered in October 2001 by three senior judges headed by Lord Woolf, LCJ. Submissions by the defence that Martin had fired in his own defence were rejected by the appeal court. On this occasion the defence also submitted evidence that Martin was diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder exacerbated by depression[15] and that his paranoia was specifically directed at anyone intruding into his home; he was also diagnosed with Asperger syndrome.[16] This submission was accepted by the Court of Appeal and, on the grounds of diminished responsibility, Martin's murder conviction was replaced by manslaughter carrying a five-year sentence, and his ten-year sentence for wounding Fearon was reduced to three years. These sentences were to run concurrently.[17]

Parole applications and release[edit]
Martin was imprisoned in Highpoint Prison at Stradishall in Suffolk. When he became eligible for parole and early release in January 2003, the Parole Board rejected his application without stating a reason.[18] The chairman of the parole board, Sir David Hatch, in an interview with The Times described Martin as "a very dangerous man" who might still believe his action had been right.[19]

Martin challenged the decision in the High Court, where the parole board's decision was upheld.[20] Probation officers on Martin's cases said there was an "unacceptable risk" that Martin might again react with excessive force if other would-be burglars intruded on his Norfolk farm.[21] On 28 July 2003, Martin was released after serving three years of his five-year sentence,[8] the maximum period for which he could be held following good behaviour.

Compensation claim[edit]
During 2003, Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5,000 of legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injuries he had sustained.[22] However, the case was thrown into doubt when photographs were published in The Sun, showing him "cycling and climbing with little apparent difficulty" suggesting that Fearon's injuries were not as serious as had been claimed.[23] While the case was pending, Fearon was recalled to jail after being charged with the theft of a vehicle while on probation on a conviction for dealing heroin.[24] Fearon later dropped the case when Martin agreed to drop a counter-claim. Tens of thousands of pounds of public money had been spent on the case.[25]

Nick Makin, Martin's solicitor, said: "It is appalling that the family of someone who has a criminal record for burglary and assault should attempt to claim any damages of criminal injury when he was shot while burgling the dwelling of an innocent person... It is also appalling that they may get legal aid while his victim is in prison and patently unable to work and equally cannot get legal aid... There is something wrong and perverse with our legal system that it permits this."[11]

Threats, interviews, and political activity[edit]
The BBC reported in 2003 that Fearon's supporters put a bounty on Martin's head of several tens of thousands of pounds.[9] In July 2003 The Daily Telegraph reported that a cousin of Barras had said that a £60,000 bounty had been put on Martin's head.[26]

In October 2003 the Daily Mirror paid Martin £125,000 for an exclusive interview on his release from prison. After investigation, the Press Complaints Commission ruled that the payment was justified and in the public interest because Martin "had a unique insight into an issue of great public concern".[27]

Since his release Martin has appeared on the platform of the UK Independence Party (UKIP)[28] and was the guest-of-honour at the Traditional Britain Group's Annual Dinner at Simpson's-in-the-Strand on 7 November 2003.[29] Martin said himself that he had attended meetings of the National Front in Norfolk, and later went on to endorse the British National Party.[30] One of Martin's uncles by marriage, Andrew Fountaine, was a founder member of the National Front.[3][30]

but not entirely sure that the conviction was that "disgusting". 

Not sure eh, but you're almost there.

Remember, they were jailing a man who was at the end of his tether, for lashing out under extreme provocation after multiple invasions of his home. 

I rate the burglars' rights as nil in that situation.

And a bloody good show for any harm they came to.

Well, that was certainly the case for the defence, Crippen. The jury were given the option of manslaughter, but voted guilty of murder.
The subsequent commuting to manslaughter and consequent reduction of sentence was as a result of evidence being presented re his mental state. This "personality disorder" evidence was not presented by the defence to the original jury.

Had they been peaceful religious burglars, he would still be inside

I don't believe that the law should protect people who are acting outside of the law.
Subject to the type of crime that they are committing of course.

Burglary or housebreaking would certainly be a ''at your own risk'' type of offence.

I agree Crippen, problem was though that Martin was acting outside the law which is why he was jailed.

They should have watered down the sentence due to the circumstances.

Martin wouldn't have be acting outside of the law under my proposal.

and that is probably what is wrong with it