It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, and it seems to me that the debate on an individual's right to defend his home has more to do with words than punishment.

Perhaps it's down to the fact there are so many lawyers in Parliament, but politicians seem to be reaching for the dictionary rather than the law book when arguing their point.

This whole debate has been gathering pace since the conviction of Norfolk farmer Tony Martin who shot a burglar outside his home.

At the moment the law states a householder may use force "as is reasonable" to protect themselves. A jury subsequently decided that blasting a burglar in the back with a shotgun cannot be termed "reasonable" and Mr Martin was convicted of murder.

An appeal court later agreed with this interpretation of what was "reasonable" although it reduced the conviction to manslaughter.

Tory leader Michael Howard has seized the initiative in the latest round of the law and order debate by calling for householders to escape prosecution unless it is felt they have used "grossly disproportionate force".

Whether this would have made any difference in the case of Tony Martin we will never know, but I think we are putting the cart before the horse. Instead of debating whether we can shoot burglars, we should be asking why there are so many burglars about in the first place.

The former Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, James Anderton, became much derided - mainly because of his openness about his Christian beliefs. But I remember him speaking out in 1982 when politically correct policing first began to gain a foothold.

He warned that Britain faced a challenge on its own streets which was more insidious than the Second World War. People laughed at the time but I suspect they are not laughing now.

The whole issue highlights how policy makers and public bodies as a whole - such as the police - have slipped back into reactive mode. We have allowed a situation to develop where the majority of resources are ploughed into coping with the results of crime, the results of unhealthy lifestyle, the results of pollution, instead of pro-actively preventing such things occurring in the first place.

The Tony Martin case is extremely rare but there are daily examples of how burglars are terrorising the public and how society appears to be bending over backwards to protect the rights of the criminal as opposed to the victim.

How has this happened? Is it because criminals consider the "punishment" they will receive if caught and decide it is a risk worth taking ?

Instead of focusing on protecting the public, the law appears to be just as concerned with protecting criminals.

I can see the current debate on how far a householder can go to protect themselves and their property degenerating into a political argument about semantics.

By the time the election comes around I hope the debate has moved on to how the various parties intend to prevent burglary and other crimes happening in the first place.