In the republican system envisioned by America's founders, (note the small "r" to differentiate the philosophy from a political party) citizens have an obligation to participate in their own security. That's why the Constitution includes references to the militia, for example.

Another example is the so-called "citizen's arrest," wherein an ordinary person steps into a crime scene to apprehend a criminal and hold him until the arrival of police.

Citizen's arrests are seldom seen, but they are not extinct. Every year in the news are stories of how ordinary people defended themselves or their neighbors against criminals.

Yet a growing number of people, it seems, prefer not to get involved and prefer to cede all law enforcement functions to the government, feeling no personal responsibility. It doesn't seem to matter to them that the police are rarely present when a crime is being committed. Never mind that urgent action is needed at the moment the store is being robbed, when the woman is being assaulted or when the home is being burglarized. A great many people nevertheless are content to call 911 rather than intervene personally.

It's a philosophy that is hotly debated by advocates of concealed weapons. To them, the attitudes of "don't get involved" or "it's better to be a victim than to resist" went out of style with the frontier. Nowadays, the government is supposed to protect us.

A quick survey of citizen's arrest suggests that certain authorities and experts want to discourage private individuals from stepping in to stop crimes. They constantly harp on the dangers and difficulties of citizen's arrest.

But the other side deserves attention too.

The idea of citizen's arrest -- involving the right, and even the duty, of a private citizen to confront lawbreakers -- goes back centuries to English common law. Before the rise of professional police departments, ordinary citizens were expected to play a role in fighting crime. That's perhaps most familiar to us today in Western movies, where the sheriff deputizes local residents and forms a posse.

Today, citizen's arrest is recognized in the laws of many nations and every state but North Carolina. Typical is the key portion of Utah's law, which runs: "A private person may arrest another: (1) For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence; or (2) When a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe the person arrested has committed it."

But in exploring the subject, we found a host of admonitions against trying to make a citizens arrest. It's too risky, some experts say. Call 911 and let the police handle it; they have the training and experience to do so, the experts coo.

We support our local police and recognize their training and experience. But the fact remains that they're generally not on the scene when a crime is being committed. Are people supposed to just stand by wringing their hands while someone is robbed, beaten or murdered?

It has been persuasively argued that the power of citizen's arrest is an acknowledgment that "we the people" are the source of law in a society. We are not merely passive recipients of government gifts, but active participants who have a stake in getting criminals off the street.

Social scientist John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," points to Israel as one example of involved citizens. That nation found that it was simply impossible to put enough police and soldiers around to protect Israelis from terrorist attacks. Virtually the whole citizenry is armed.

Though that may be an extreme example, the same idea applies to Utah and everywhere else. If the law officers aren't on the scene, average Americans are the law. We have a right, even an obligation, to step in.

Consider just once incident earlier this month. News reports said that in Eau Claire, Wis., tavern patrons were informed that a teenager was rifling through a car in the parking lot. An ad hoc posse of four ran outside, wrestled the suspect to the ground, and detained him until police arrived and took him into custody.

Yes, there are risks in citizen's arrests. In this case, the suspect above had a knife in his pocket. People need to assess a situation realistically, and not let adrenaline do their thinking. There may be situations where a call to 911 is the best choice -- for example, if there's no imminent danger to life or property. But what kind of country would we be if we weren't willing to take risks to fight crime and save others?

It is true that the actions of a person making a citizen's arrest will be scrutinized to a high degree -- perhaps more than a police officer. A citizen making an arrest must therefore be sure the arrest is justifiable. If you use force to detain someone illegally, you could face civil or criminal charges; and you won't be protected by government immunity statutes that remove all the risk from sworn officers who made an improper arrest.

The same holds true for the use of excessive force, detaining someone too long or in unsafe conditions, or otherwise violating the law. So, critics of citizen's arrest say, every person must become a virtual walking law library.

That's a bad position to be in when a life might be at stake. It's something the Legislature could adjust. Utah has a Good Samaritan Act which aims to protect people who try to help others in emergencies. We propose that the Legislature pass a "Good Citizen Act" to protect those who in good faith step in to stop a crime.

Protecting other people from crime is not only a basic right, it's a sacred duty. It seems right to us that the Legislature should be willing to help those who are willing to help others by removing some of the legal risk.

----------------