THE case of Tony Martin has stirred intense public debate about the rights of criminals and their victims.

The populist view is simple: burglars forfeit all rights when they invade someone's home and deserve what's coming to them.

Teenage burglar Fred Barras therefore deserved to die at the age of 16 and Martin should be freed immediately, not to say compensated for having his liberty taken away.

The reality is that it can never be that simple. This newspaper has campaigned to redress the imbalance between the treatment of offenders and victims, but the line has to be drawn well before the taking of a life.

We understand the nationwide sympathy for the plight of Martin. We share the frustration that courts too often impose sentences which do not fit the crime. But we do not share the view that burglary warrants a death sentence.

By unlawfully killing Fred Barras, Martin crossed the line based around the long-established premise that we are all allowed to use "reasonable force" to protect our property.

If the criminal justice system accepted the crossing of that line, where would it end? Would those of us who are engaged in the exceptionally hazardous occupation of raising children - any one of whom could go off the rails - accept that they could be shot dead for breaking into a house and forever deprived of the opportunity to make amends for their mistakes?

The case which sparked this impassioned debate is a tragic one for all concerned - Fred Barras, Tony Martin and their families.

Following yesterday's High Court decision not to sanction his early release, Martin will be freed on July 28. He will emerge from prison as a national folk hero with a flood of lucrative offers for newspaper, book and film rights awaiting him.

But as harsh as it may seem, as unpopular as it undoubtedly is with many of our readers, society must never endorse what Tony Martin did.