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

[d9f1c7]

No

[Brenden]

No, it might make youngsters think twice before joining gangs, especially if a life sentence for murder means life.

[Baldric]

NO

[emmie]

No definitely not.

[albaqwerty]

Absolutely not. Each is culpable.

[Davethedog]

I don't think so. These kids are ferrel, you have to ask yourself would one individual act in violence if he was alone.

I think the people who are pushing it are incredibly naive, "what if they attck someone and don't realise someone else has a knife"

No

[McMouse]

No.

[chelle7272]

No

[anotheoldgit]

Can't see where I said "Let's have a vote on it"

[Baldric]

The only question asked in theOP was 'should the law be Scrapped?'
a one-word answer will suffice.

[ludwig]

It should be changed. At the moment there are innocent people getting caught up in it.

e.g you're out with a bunch of mates - some you don't know very well because they're mates of mates. Another bunch of youths attacks you without provocation. You attempt to run away but are beaten to the ground and kicked unconcious.
When you come around you find that one of your mates mates has stabbed one of the attacking gang to death. You go straight to the police and co-operate fully.
Unfortunately because of JE you're charged and you're looking at a mandatory life sentence. At no point in this have you done anything wrong.

In other cases of gang attack, Stephen Lawrence being the most prescient, all of the attacking gang are clearly culpable in his death, irrespective of who actually held the knife.

[anotheoldgit]

Baldric

/// The only question asked in theOP was 'should the law be Scrapped?' ///

/// a one-word answer will suffice. ///

So you have no opinion to make one way or the other, why the law should not be scrapped?

Perhaps others might be interested to know why you made that particular choice, this in turn, turns into debate in which we all can join in with.

Or can you not just see that?

[Davethedog]

Sandy Brilliant

[chelle7272]

Why didn't you ask that in the question?

[anotheoldgit]

Thank you ludwig for at last giving an intelligent and reasonable answer to the question in hand.

[DTCwordfan]

Revert to proper English law where each case is decided on its merits - with all the nuances unravelled......the police have been hiding behind this law to nail gangs and have, at times, got it seriously wrong by smearing those who had no idea their so-called mate had a gun or knife

However, there is a case to have such a deterrent to gang behaviour, so I would advocate a law revision to include wording "No stone shall rest unturned but in the default that no individual can be held responsible, a collective charge may be made" (or words to that effect).

[Baldric]

Aog, yes of course I see it.
I responded to your OP.
If you wanted more, you should have said!

[sandyRoe]

An answer from me that was deemed 'brilliant' by one poster has been removed. Strange, or what?

[DTCwordfan]

Sandy, I suspect a suppression of free speech by one ABer.

I wonder who?

And though being politically at 120 degrees from you, I do object to that removal, there was nothing wrong with it.