Joint Enterprise
 

Anyone see that documentary on Joint Enterprise on Monday night and possibly the drama on Sunday night on same subject? Joint Enterprise being a legal means of charging individuals with a crime that may have been committed by only one of them. So for example if a gang of youths stroll around and one of them decides to stab and kill a member of a rival gang then the whole lot are charged with murder and face a term of up to 25 years in gaol. Individuals may not have been directly involved and just hanging out in the group.

This is a wonderful way for the police to clear the streets of gang crime although rather expensive for the taxpayer who foots the board and lodgings bill. And tough on someone who was not involved in the crime directly and heart breaking for families of those incarcerated.

To me the way the law is applied seemed grossly unfair on some and I would be interested in other views.

Any one? David

Saw the first programme, a sad tale indeed for the young lad who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This law is unfair but difficult to know which is the best way forward. A bit like when someone did something in class at school and nobody owned up and the whole class got the belt.

I didn't see it so perhaps it already answers this, but Shirley the wrong-place-wrong-time type could just 'tell' on them and avoid the gaol time?

I'm 50:50

It does deal with the mob mentality that you do see out on the streets when something kicks off. I think the crux is, if your mates are knobheads, don't hang around with them.

I know in every crowd there is always one thats a nutter, but its down the others to keep him under control - its in their own best interest. I mean if you saw your "mate" stamping on the head of someone, would you stop him or just watch?

Or....even egg him on?...We've all seen the gobby kid that eggs on his mate to duff someone up, hell I've even seen a women try to get her boyfriend to smash my mate's face in....why? For standing in a queue at a Pizaa takeaway with a glazed look on his face (he was pissed)...he didn't even say anything, just gave the "wrong look". Luckily in that case it managed to get defused...Everyone else in the shop was bricking it - staff already on the phone to the plod etc. But it could easily have been different, and the person who started it wasn't the one who was throwing the punches. So IMO and experience if you asscociate with someone who can be violent then you have a degree of responsibility to avoid that happening.

Thanks for input. I think there is a lot to put right in the law as it stands. My main thought is that there should be a much clearer identification from the police on who was actually involved in the crime. OK pull in the guys/gals close to a stabbing that were encouraging a crime but don't pull in the others who had no direct involvement or charge them with a much lesser crime. 25 years for just being there and possibly not even knowing what was happening is wrong. It was also verging on being racist as most of the example used black kids. May be there are more black gangs but there are others.

David

Quite similar to 'felony murder' in the US, where if for example 2 people rob a corner-shop and just one of them shoots the shopkeeper dead (they can't both hold the same gun, after all), both of them can be charged with murder.

I'd be the first to admit the US justice system has its fair share of faults, but this is one detail I think they've got right. Live a life of criminality, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

As they alluded to in the program, only really going to affect chavs and the lower orders

So not really a concern to the snet massive

Been around for a long while, they used to call it co-accused back in the day, basically you get shafted just for being there which I don't think is fair really, each individual is responsible for their own actions.

I once watched a mate fight with two lads, he didn't want or need any help, he knocked one of them out and proceeded to give the second one a hiding, I went over and put the unconscious one in the recovery position as he sounded like he might choke on his tongue, then I got between the two of them fighting and daft lad (not my mate) who was originally the main aggressor tried to have a pop at me, even though I was trying to save him a proper kicking.

I eventually dragged my mate away, but if the first lad would have died i'd have gone to jail too despite trying to break it up and helping the sparko one.:cuckoo:

This..^^^... I would assume that it's a way of "encouraging" people to report others of a crime in order to save themselves. I will also refuse to accept that mitigation can no longer play a part in modern day law whether it be true or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case
Didn't pull the trigger but still hanged for it.......

Shaun

As said above is it as simple as to "Grass" the person known to have done it within the group? or should the the person who did it take the rap as to not see his mates do bird for his crime?

for example If 5 lads were walking through town one of the 5 stabbed and killed someone is the only reason they are being sent down as a group is not one of them will "grass" on a mate?

There needs to be proof of some form of pre-incident cooperation or agreement. Could even be a nod, or a look, if it can be proven.

Driving a bunch of mates to a confrontation that leads to severe injury or a death is one way or making it easy to prove.

Another one is when DNA or whatever proves one person's presence at a scrap/fight. That person might well go down for worst that was done in the confrontation.

J.

Interesting development in this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35598896

I think maybe in some of the cases it has been used to put away people where evidence has been lacking. But one has to question why would the CPS or plod go after someone under joint enterprise if they already had evidence of who the murderer was. :wonder:

Certainly it looks very likely the Stephen Laurance pair will go free.....and thats going to unsettle the anti-racial lobbyists.

s a whole.I'm all for it.Most of these so-called gang members wouldn't say boo to a goose when they are on their own.

If not you have a charter for gangs to go about criminal activity & put some poor young sap up front to take the rap whilst the main players walk away.

Gang criminality requires law that addresses the gang culture.

Is a difficult one.

Is like everything, if it is used correctly then I think it has it;s place, but with any law there will always be cases of interpretation that will make it seem unjust.

I do think that there is 'safety in numbers' and that the main protagonist in most incidences would not be as bold if acting alone, so I guess the group is to blame, more so if they cajole and encourage violent actions to be carried out.

Is like the old school days, any sniff of a dispute and you had the circle of encouragers shouting 'fight, fight, fight ....' these days they would have camera phones at the ready as they bayed for blood. So ok, not directly responsible but not helping the situation, or trying to prevent it.

I think I am right when I say that if you watch a crime and do nothing about it, or report it then you can be charged, so why not for watching your mate beat someone halve to death or just be standing on the side line shouting 'go on hit him'.

So, in short, just lock them all up, want to know the obscene amount of tax I pay is used for something :thumb: