Joint Enterprise - scary!
Discussion
Sorry if this is in the wrong section.
I saw some of the programme on TV last night about the issue of Joint Enterprise and how anyone who was present and can be proved to have shown intent to murder someone can be banged up for just as long as the actual offender. In essence, the programme centred around a lad who'd gone out shopping with his mates. One of them got involved in a scuffle and stabbed someone to death. Said lad (apparently) had no idea his mate was carrying a knife but as he was part of the group, was sentenced to the same number of years as the lad who did the stabbing.
Whilst I can see the benefit of having such a law (in so far as it may help to stem gang-related violence) surely not all of these cases are as clear cut as this rule makes out. There must be a large number of "innocent" people in prison who just happened to be out with the wrong mate at the wrong time.
Quite scary really.
I saw some of the programme on TV last night about the issue of Joint Enterprise and how anyone who was present and can be proved to have shown intent to murder someone can be banged up for just as long as the actual offender. In essence, the programme centred around a lad who'd gone out shopping with his mates. One of them got involved in a scuffle and stabbed someone to death. Said lad (apparently) had no idea his mate was carrying a knife but as he was part of the group, was sentenced to the same number of years as the lad who did the stabbing.
Whilst I can see the benefit of having such a law (in so far as it may help to stem gang-related violence) surely not all of these cases are as clear cut as this rule makes out. There must be a large number of "innocent" people in prison who just happened to be out with the wrong mate at the wrong time.
Quite scary really.
Nezquick said:
Sorry if this is in the wrong section.
I saw some of the programme on TV last night about the issue of Joint Enterprise and how anyone who was present and can be proved to have shown intent to murder someone can be banged up for just as long as the actual offender. In essence, the programme centred around a lad who'd gone out shopping with his mates. One of them got involved in a scuffle and stabbed someone to death. Said lad (apparently) had no idea his mate was carrying a knife but as he was part of the group, was sentenced to the same number of years as the lad who did the stabbing.
Whilst I can see the benefit of having such a law (in so far as it may help to stem gang-related violence) surely not all of these cases are as clear cut as this rule makes out. There must be a large number of "innocent" people in prison who just happened to be out with the wrong mate at the wrong time.
Quite scary really.
There is no need to even prove their intent. Just being involved in a crime is enough. I can certainly see that if a group agree to perform an armed robbery or to beat someone up and a death results, they should all be regarded as guilty irrespective of who pulled the trigger or made the fatal blow. But it does seem to be interpreted widely. I saw some of the programme on TV last night about the issue of Joint Enterprise and how anyone who was present and can be proved to have shown intent to murder someone can be banged up for just as long as the actual offender. In essence, the programme centred around a lad who'd gone out shopping with his mates. One of them got involved in a scuffle and stabbed someone to death. Said lad (apparently) had no idea his mate was carrying a knife but as he was part of the group, was sentenced to the same number of years as the lad who did the stabbing.
Whilst I can see the benefit of having such a law (in so far as it may help to stem gang-related violence) surely not all of these cases are as clear cut as this rule makes out. There must be a large number of "innocent" people in prison who just happened to be out with the wrong mate at the wrong time.
Quite scary really.
The classic in my opinion being Derek Bentley who took part in a burglary and ended up hanged for a murder that was committed by someone else 20 minutes after Bentley had been arrested. The guy who pulled the trigger wasn't hanged because he was too young.
bad company said:
Yes I watched that and was appalled at some of the injustice.
I only saw the start of it but it does raise some very serious questions. Until these questions are answered I would suggest you don't hang about with people who carry offensive weapons regularly (other than those they need for their immediate, lawful, work) and who have anger management issues.
Even better still, don't hang out with people or gangs known for their violent criminal behaviour.
Hang around in a barn full of s
t long enough and some of it's going to attach to you.Rude-boy said:
I only saw the start of it but it does raise some very serious questions.
Until these questions are answered I would suggest you don't hang about with people who carry offensive weapons regularly (other than those they need for their immediate, lawful, work) and who have anger management issues.
Even better still, don't hang out with people or gangs known for their violent criminal behaviour.
Hang around in a barn full of st long enough and some of it's going to attach to you.
If you're talking to a reasonably respectable acquaintance and they introduce you to their mate, do you immediately start wondering if the mate is carrying an offensive weapon and might have anger issues? I certainly don't.Until these questions are answered I would suggest you don't hang about with people who carry offensive weapons regularly (other than those they need for their immediate, lawful, work) and who have anger management issues.
Even better still, don't hang out with people or gangs known for their violent criminal behaviour.
Hang around in a barn full of s
t long enough and some of it's going to attach to you.I saw it too though had different thoughts on the subject
Having previously had to put up with drug dealing neighbours this would be a brilliant way to get at them. The police have difficulty proving who is in possession & who is dealing, this is where the law falls down currently. However insert "joint enterprise" & its an a much easier way to get them all in one go. EG 5 people present at the premises, known to be connected with dealing which & proven to be connected, 5 people go down for it, where otherwise they would all walk away.
Think why most normal people dispise gang culture & why those involved do so. In some ways its also a good law to capture those maybe without intent at the time but a culture of wishing to being seen involved & in the gang.
I appreciate the youngster going shopping may be an exception looking at the facts but otherwise this law is doing the job better than other options. Sentencing is a different matter though.
Having previously had to put up with drug dealing neighbours this would be a brilliant way to get at them. The police have difficulty proving who is in possession & who is dealing, this is where the law falls down currently. However insert "joint enterprise" & its an a much easier way to get them all in one go. EG 5 people present at the premises, known to be connected with dealing which & proven to be connected, 5 people go down for it, where otherwise they would all walk away.
Think why most normal people dispise gang culture & why those involved do so. In some ways its also a good law to capture those maybe without intent at the time but a culture of wishing to being seen involved & in the gang.
I appreciate the youngster going shopping may be an exception looking at the facts but otherwise this law is doing the job better than other options. Sentencing is a different matter though.
Dr Jekyll said:
The classic in my opinion being Derek Bentley who took part in a burglary and ended up hanged for a murder that was committed by someone else 20 minutes after Bentley had been arrested. The guy who pulled the trigger wasn't hanged because he was too young.
You should write for the daily mail with your selective fact telling to create astonishment and hysteria.Pop yourself into the NP&E section and you will become the section hero
blindswelledrat said:
Dr Jekyll said:
The classic in my opinion being Derek Bentley who took part in a burglary and ended up hanged for a murder that was committed by someone else 20 minutes after Bentley had been arrested. The guy who pulled the trigger wasn't hanged because he was too young.
You should write for the daily mail with your selective fact telling to create astonishment and hysteria.Pop yourself into the NP&E section and you will become the section hero
Dr Jekyll said:
blindswelledrat said:
Dr Jekyll said:
The classic in my opinion being Derek Bentley who took part in a burglary and ended up hanged for a murder that was committed by someone else 20 minutes after Bentley had been arrested. The guy who pulled the trigger wasn't hanged because he was too young.
You should write for the daily mail with your selective fact telling to create astonishment and hysteria.Pop yourself into the NP&E section and you will become the section hero
Lost soul said:
Dr Jekyll said:
blindswelledrat said:
Dr Jekyll said:
The classic in my opinion being Derek Bentley who took part in a burglary and ended up hanged for a murder that was committed by someone else 20 minutes after Bentley had been arrested. The guy who pulled the trigger wasn't hanged because he was too young.
You should write for the daily mail with your selective fact telling to create astonishment and hysteria.Pop yourself into the NP&E section and you will become the section hero
Im not suggesting the result was correct, I am merely cringing at how he tried to twist it to even suggest that Bentley wasn't there at the time, let alone the actual reason why he was convicted.
blindswelledrat said:
Lost soul said:
Dr Jekyll said:
blindswelledrat said:
Dr Jekyll said:
The classic in my opinion being Derek Bentley who took part in a burglary and ended up hanged for a murder that was committed by someone else 20 minutes after Bentley had been arrested. The guy who pulled the trigger wasn't hanged because he was too young.
You should write for the daily mail with your selective fact telling to create astonishment and hysteria.Pop yourself into the NP&E section and you will become the section hero
Im not suggesting the result was correct, I am merely cringing at how he tried to twist it to even suggest that Bentley wasn't there at the time, let alone the actual reason why he was convicted.
Lost soul said:
the " let him have it" quote is often used in Bentleys defence isn't it
WHats your point?I'm merely saying that regardless of it being a miscarriage of justice, it has nothing to do with this thread and the above description of the case bore no relationship to the actual facts
blindswelledrat said:
He's wrong because he has completely missed the salient fact of the case, (which has nothing to do with Joint Enterprise and this thread) that Bentley was there and shouted "Let him have it" which was judged to have been an instruction to shoot the policeman.
Im not suggesting the result was correct, I am merely cringing at how he tried to twist it to even suggest that Bentley wasn't there at the time, let alone the actual reason why he was convicted.
It had everything to do with joint enterprise. The whole point of the alleged 'Let him have it' phrase was that it was regarded as evidence of joint enterprise. Incidentally the officer shot after this alleged phrase survived and the fatal shooting was some time later.Im not suggesting the result was correct, I am merely cringing at how he tried to twist it to even suggest that Bentley wasn't there at the time, let alone the actual reason why he was convicted.
Seems quite simple to avoid it being a problem.
Don't hang around with the kind of idiot who's likely to get involved in a knife-fight.
If you do, then don't just stand around like a useless waste of oxygen whilst somebody gets murdered.
If you do, then don't try to deny all knowledge when - inevitably - the law catches up with you.
Works for me.
"I didn't know he had a knife" is not a terribly effective defence when you've been part of a group that's stabbed somebody to death. What did you think was going on? A cheeky tickle?
Don't hang around with the kind of idiot who's likely to get involved in a knife-fight.
If you do, then don't just stand around like a useless waste of oxygen whilst somebody gets murdered.
If you do, then don't try to deny all knowledge when - inevitably - the law catches up with you.
Works for me.
"I didn't know he had a knife" is not a terribly effective defence when you've been part of a group that's stabbed somebody to death. What did you think was going on? A cheeky tickle?
I didn't see the show.
I am broadly in favour of the joint enterprise laws.
I recall many years back I was out with mates and we joined up with mates-of-mates.
We were refused entry to a club.
It got a bit mouthy.
One of the mates-of-mates kicked a nearby car and the car owner got involved - the bouncers stepped in.
Me and my mates backed off and let the bouncers deal, the police soon arrived. Plod was pushed, arrests occurred.
A bouncer pointed to me and my mates who were stood a short distance away waiting.
Plod walks over and asks if we're with them.
Our answer was "not anymore".
He just smiled and wandered off.
There were 6 of us.
3 mates who backed off and said we should all just walk away.
1 troublemaker who kicked the car and pushed the cop.
2 of his mates who stayed with him as wingmen.
I like to think the two wingmen (who were arrested) would have been done for join enterprise by me and my two mates would not.
I like to think the courts are sensible enough to recognise when someone is genuinely not involved.
I am broadly in favour of the joint enterprise laws.
I recall many years back I was out with mates and we joined up with mates-of-mates.
We were refused entry to a club.
It got a bit mouthy.
One of the mates-of-mates kicked a nearby car and the car owner got involved - the bouncers stepped in.
Me and my mates backed off and let the bouncers deal, the police soon arrived. Plod was pushed, arrests occurred.
A bouncer pointed to me and my mates who were stood a short distance away waiting.
Plod walks over and asks if we're with them.
Our answer was "not anymore".
He just smiled and wandered off.
There were 6 of us.
3 mates who backed off and said we should all just walk away.
1 troublemaker who kicked the car and pushed the cop.
2 of his mates who stayed with him as wingmen.
I like to think the two wingmen (who were arrested) would have been done for join enterprise by me and my two mates would not.
I like to think the courts are sensible enough to recognise when someone is genuinely not involved.
TooMany2cvs said:
Seems quite simple to avoid it being a problem.
Don't hang around with the kind of idiot who's likely to get involved in a knife-fight.
If you do, then don't just stand around like a useless waste of oxygen whilst somebody gets murdered.
If you do, then don't try to deny all knowledge when - inevitably - the law catches up with you.
Works for me.
"I didn't know he had a knife" is not a terribly effective defence when you've been part of a group that's stabbed somebody to death. What did you think was going on? A cheeky tickle?
Sorry that's a ridiculous view. Anybody can be out with friends who are joined by more friends and end up in\with a group of people previously unkown.Don't hang around with the kind of idiot who's likely to get involved in a knife-fight.
If you do, then don't just stand around like a useless waste of oxygen whilst somebody gets murdered.
If you do, then don't try to deny all knowledge when - inevitably - the law catches up with you.
Works for me.
"I didn't know he had a knife" is not a terribly effective defence when you've been part of a group that's stabbed somebody to death. What did you think was going on? A cheeky tickle?
If somebody is out with a gang and knows somebody in the gang is carrying a knife fair enough but if they did not know . . . . .
bad company said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Seems quite simple to avoid it being a problem.
Don't hang around with the kind of idiot who's likely to get involved in a knife-fight.
If you do, then don't just stand around like a useless waste of oxygen whilst somebody gets murdered.
If you do, then don't try to deny all knowledge when - inevitably - the law catches up with you.
Sorry that's a ridiculous view. Anybody can be out with friends who are joined by more friends and end up in\with a group of people previously unkown.Don't hang around with the kind of idiot who's likely to get involved in a knife-fight.
If you do, then don't just stand around like a useless waste of oxygen whilst somebody gets murdered.
If you do, then don't try to deny all knowledge when - inevitably - the law catches up with you.
If somebody is out with a gang and knows somebody in the gang is carrying a knife fair enough but if they did not know . . . . .
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff