Aiding & Abetting.....

[evoman3957]

.......is a lawful charge as laid down in our criminal justice system. Of course, it relates to aiding and abetting those indulging in criminal offences; as recognized by that same justice system. To expand on that, do YOU believe in guilt by association.  Personally I do, because as far as I'm concerned; if you swim in a sewer, you can't expect to come out smelling of roses.  The kind of people you mix with, is a reflection of your own morality and personality.

[littleme61_6]

Yes I agree with you. 

Anyone who is an accessory to any crime, have willingly made themselves a part of that crime.

Possibly they weren't actually there when the intial crime took place, but for sure they chose to be an accessory, so they should be charged in a similar way in my opinion. 

[fallen-archie]

I also agree, it seems ridiculous to me that those who often organise or goad people into causing or undertaking criminal acts are not treated the same as those who physically commit a crime. Trouble is where do you draw a line, take those who put inflammatory comments on social media, for me freedom of expression is important but some of the abuse seen on here over the years and regularly on Facebook is deserving of court action too.

[cee-dee]

I agree. I think those associated with an act of criminality are guilty of joint enterprise if they were with someone at the time a crime was committed.

Those carried in a stolen car for instance? The driver runs off and isn't caught and those with him (it's usually a "him"?) don't get pinched.

[evoman3957]

But what about the finer points, those instances that are not blatantly against the law; but break up, or break down, our society....... like the famous Japanese tap torture.  For instance, hate preachers; those that stoke things up, but never quite cross the line into illegality......and what about their followers ( more to the point )........and to raise a point mentioned by archie, we've had some blatant " Trolls " on here; yet those people have received Kudos from others, still on these boards. There's no point in setting the bar so high, that the law takes care of the transgressors; it's the everyday sewer dwellers, that we should be distancing ourselves from........isn't it ???

[cee-dee]

The whole point of it all is NOT having lines drawn too hard. They should be "flexible". Unfortunately that needs intelligence which seems to be sadly lacking where Laws are concerned which is why we get back to hard and fast lines which.................... You can see what I mean?

[upthecreekyetagain]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the interpretation of the ancient joint enterprise legislation in recent years has been wrong.

This gives the flexibility that you are asking for with regards to whether or not someone is really aiding and abetting someone in the commission of a crime.

Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling if someone could be shown to have foresight that another might commit a crime and did nothing that was sufficient proof of 'encouraging and assisting' the criminal act and were therefore equally guilty.  Their ruling is that a jury must decide not just whether the accused had that foresight but whether or not they also had the sufficient intent to encourage and assist in the crime.

[cee-dee]

You're on dodgy ground there. Even after that "ruling", the issue is still very wooly.

Although in some cases a person accused of joint enterprise might "escape" the "main charge", the Law still means they're guilty of a slightly lesser charge. For example, a person charged with murder under joint enterprise can still be lawfully found guilty of manslaughter.

What it might mean is that those so accused may well see themselves facing the prosecution asking for a conviction for murder or manslaughter instead of just going ahead with murder alone.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Yes but the lesser charge would have to be proven on its own merits not under the cloak of 'joint enterprise'.

[cee-dee]

But in Murder cases, sometimes the accused is found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter so that would surely be the same for someone accused of murder by joint enterprise?

Anyway, you know the old saying about The Law, "The Law is an....." it's stupid...? Where The Law isn't spelled out in so many words, there's ways to twist it. Making the letter of some Laws "Hard and Fast" often leaves room for criticism that it's too complicated but that's where intelligence and common sense comes in to it? Anyway, that recent ruling was in itself flawed I think.

[evoman3957]

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

But in Murder cases, sometimes the accused is found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter so that would surely be the same for someone accused of murder by joint enterprise?

Anyway, you know the old saying about The Law, "The Law is an....." it's stupid...? Where The Law isn't spelled out in so many words, there's ways to twist it. Making the letter of some Laws "Hard and Fast" often leaves room for criticism that it's too complicated but that's where intelligence and common sense comes in to it? Anyway, that recent ruling was in itself flawed I think.

---

No