Should the joint enterprise law be scrapped?

[anotheoldgit]

Simplified, this is the law that makes each gang member equally guilty even if only one of them carried out the actual killing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16605581

http://news.bbc.co.uk...newsnight/9629991.stm

[DTCwordfan]

As the old adage goes, "Harsh but Fair!"

[sandyRoe]

In a humourous way I was trying to illustrate the dangers there are in such catch-all laws. If someone was in the company of another who committed a crime it could result in a long prison sentence for a crime they knew nothing about.

[bundleone]

I remember the case of Francis Forsythe who was hanged in 1959 I think, aged 18, He didn,t have a knife but still took the same punishment as the killer just for being there. I can remember feeling it was wrong to give him the death sentence, I think he was the youngest member of the gang.

[sandyRoe]

There was also the case of Derek Bentley, aged 19, who was hanged for the murder of a policeman. The gunman was too young for the death sentence.

[Gromit]

Joint Enterprise the legal term probably does not have the meaning you attribute to it.

You say that if six lads get in a fight and one stabs someone, they are all equally guilty. I don't think that interpretation is correct.

If six lads went out with the aim of stabbing someone, then they all would be guilty under joint enterprise.

Just because they are in a gang, an association or a collective, does not mean guilt is shared.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// You say that if six lads get in a fight and one stabs someone, they are all equally guilty. I don't think that interpretation is correct.///

<The law of Joint Enterprise allows the courts to impose a life sentence on people even if they took no direct part in an offence.>

<People can be convicted of serious offences, even murder, whether or not they wielded a knife or threw a punch.>

http://news.bbc.co.uk...newsnight/9619397.stm

[Gromit]

You do not seem to have read my destinction above. So here it is again.

Six lads go out with the aim to watch a football match. They get into a fight and one of them kills someone. They are not all guilty.

Six lads go out with the aim of killing someone. They find a victim and he is murdered. They all can be charged with joint enterprise and are all guilty.

Just because you are there when someone gets into a fight (or worse) does not mean you are equally guilty.

Hope you now understand.

[ludwig]

// Six lads go out with the aim to watch a football match. They get into a fight and one of them kills someone. They are not all guilty. //

I think you're wrong gromit - and that is the whole problem with the law, and the reason they are looking at changing it. They can all be charged with the same offence and found guilty.

What does happen though is that the different roles the people played in the crime are taken into account by the judge when sentencing.
So if you stood at the back doing nothing that will mean you get a shorter sentence than the one wielding the knife, but you will still be a convicted murderer.

The hypothetical case I put on page 1 of this thread is an almost verbatim account of an ACTUAL case that I read about.

[ludwig]

..maybe the learned judge could help clarify this. He's never around when you need him.

[anotheoldgit]

Thank you ludwig for correcting Gromit, it has saved me the trouble of going through the process with him, once again.

[2012]

Yes it would be great if it could be scrapped, but alas no, to do so would leave the public vulnerable. I have come to accept the view that with no viable working alternative models in any country that I know of, at the present time better to modify the devil you know. Much thought by many people has already been spent on this problem; therefore we are in a good position to suggest between us the modifications necessary to bring justice back in alignment, recalibrate those scales fairly for both the victim and the accused. But without a doubt in joint enterprise rarely if ever are the scales favourable to the accused. Discredited GBA principles commonplace, convictions without the vital intent element, the very lowest levels of foresight alone convict sometimes mere children.
We must base our changes on a similar country’s working model, rather than scholar theories.
Public protection is the highest priority, but we must never forget that includes the accused.
There is no utopian magic wand to this problem.

[2012]

Yes it would be great if it could be scrapped, but alas no, to do so would leave the public vulnerable. I have come to accept the view that with no viable working alternative models in any country that I know of, at the present time better to modify the devil you know. Much thought by many people has already been spent on this problem; therefore we are in a good position to suggest between us the modifications necessary to bring justice back in alignment, recalibrate those scales fairly for both the victim and the accused. But without a doubt in joint enterprise rarely if ever are the scales favourable to the accused. Discredited G.B.A principles commonplace, convictions without the vital intent element, the very lowest levels of foresight alone convict sometimes mere children.
We must base our changes on a similar country’s working model, rather than scholar theories.
Public protection is the highest priority, but we must never forget that includes the accused.
There is no utopian magic wand to this problem.

[2012]

Just to clarify one point, Joint Enterprise principles exist throughout the developed world, however when I say we must build on another countries working model, I mean that Joint enterprise principles around the world do not necessarily have the same thresholds as to where culpability begins. Also in many states in America, they are moving away from the common-law principles.
For instance, a murder conviction as an accessory (which is what a joint enterprise non principle is)
Results in a maximum sentence of half of the perpetrator. There are also many more protections built into the justice system to help stop wrongful convictions. Protections that are sadly missing from our working model.

[2012]

I think what gromit is saying is misunderstood?
Where you rightly take issue,
I think you're wrong gromit - and that is the whole problem with the law, and the reason they are looking at changing it. They can all be charged with the same offence and found guilty.
I believe gromit as yet is not disputing that , but what he is saying is;
Six lads go out with the aim to watch a football match. They get into a fight and one of them kills someone. THEY ARE NOT ALL GUILTY.
He doesn’t dispute they may well all be convicted, but in those circumstances he is saying he does not believe them to all be guilty.
I think that is the point he is making.