Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,337
Surely they could more accurately be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, which carries the same term as murder anyway? 
Convicted of a murder they didn't commit
- Thread starter cheesyboy
- Start date
But can you prove it, they would just deny it, say they were going there to scare them.Surely they could more accurately be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, which carries the same term as murder anyway?
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,337
IANAL
That's a "the ends justifies the means" argument. I have no sympathy for the people involved but it's bad law to have people convicted of things they are innocent of. There's no dispute here - the people convicted of this murder neither committed this murder nor arranged this murder.
Two guys road racing in their cars. One crashes and kills a bystander. Both at fault.
I think in the OP case. They all met up to murder someone. Someone got murdered. Guilty as charged.
A lot of law is about intent. Thats why if you drive off a petrol station without paying because you forgot, its not theft. (Happened to my mum. Dad went to pay for his and her cars.. But forgot to pay for mums)
Criminal damage doesn't actually have to of caused permanent damage
I think in the OP case. They all met up to murder someone. Someone got murdered. Guilty as charged.
A lot of law is about intent. Thats why if you drive off a petrol station without paying because you forgot, its not theft. (Happened to my mum. Dad went to pay for his and her cars.. But forgot to pay for mums)
Criminal damage doesn't actually have to of caused permanent damage
Last edited:
There's a significant difference - they didn't murder anyone. One of them was killed. The others have been convicted of murdering their friend. They didn't kill their friend. They didn't intend to kill their friend. The closest parallel in your scenario would be a local resident killing one of the racers, not one of the racers killing someone. It's not the same scenario.
Had the 4 of them succeeded in their attempt to murder someone, then it would have been comparable to the scenario you describe. But that didn't happen.
As you say:
The people convicted of this murder had no intention of killing the person who was killed. He was one of them, not one of their targets.
Surely that's the whole point of this law. It makes absolutely no difference who the target was, the fact was they were planning to commit a serious crime, and a member of their party was killed instead. Had they not been there then he would not have been killed.
I don't think you'll find any normal member of public who would be against this law, it's only going to be of concern to criminals because if their actions lead to the death of an accomplice then they could be prosecuted for their death.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,476
Hey, I will have you know that they were wrongly convicted for a crime they did not commit
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
Watch you don’t post the Jesus jpg whatever you do.
People being deliberately and knowingly convicted of crimes they didn't commit should be of concern to everyone, even it is legal. Especially if it's legal.
What was said to be the point of this law was to cover situations in which a group of people committed a murder and it was possible to prove that but not possible to prove which one of them made the fatal attack. That's a completely different scenario to this. So no, this scenario wasn't the whole point of this law. This scenario is function creep. Further function creep, because it has already been extended to include people who weren't even there at the time of the murder and who had absolutely no part in it, neither in action nor planning nor intent. Which I also disagree with. I have this idea that people should only be convicted of crimes they're guilty of. Which might make me abnormal, as you say, but it doesn't make me wrong.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,476
What if one of them had just come along for the ride unaware of what was going to take place. I'm not saying that's the case but it's plausible.
I remember 1 case, where a woman was being slapped about by some drug dealer who wouldn't leave her council flat. Her male friend says 'don't worry I know a bloke who'll sort him for you'. He has no intent of killing but rather roughing up the drug dealer. The friend who said he wasn't complicit in the stabbing also got found guilty of murder and had the same punishment. The woman and a bloke who seemingly came along for the ride was found guilty of manslaughter. To me the actually murderer was the right call, but for the others it all seems excessive in the roles they played in the event. The full investigation and series of events transpire in the TV documenatry below:
Murder 24/7 - Series 1: Episode 1
Following the critical first two days of the investigation into the murder of 36-year-old Courtney Valentine-Brown, who was found stabbed in a flat in Southend-on-Sea.
www.bbc.co.uk
It should only be a concern when innocent people get caught up with it. These were not innocent, and considering this is the first and only conviction of this type, would suggest that this is only pursued in very extreme circumstances.
Perhaps this type of "function creep" will evolve into further detailed/specified laws covering these same actions, evolving how it is being used.
I will reserve my protests until this is used unjustly, however encompassing both sides of the gun violence as perps is easily understandable and looks to be widely agreeable.
Last edited:
So far. Why would it not be used again and again and extended further?
Innocent people were caught up in it - the people involved were innocent of the crime they were convicted of. I'm not a fan of "the ends justify the means" argument of convicting people of crimes they didn't commit because they're considered to be guilty of some other crimes. Even if they are guilty of some other crimes. I disagree on principle with the idea of people being deliberately convicted of crimes that they didn't commit.
Would you be OK with evidence being planted to convict people, when done for the same reason? If not, why not? If you're sure person X is guilty of a crime, why not fake evidence of, for example, drug possession that would carry the same sentence as the crime you're sure they're guilty of? The end result is the right one and that's what counts.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,885
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
This isn't merely about murdering someone but not murdering someone and whether we should be concerned about getting convicted for crimes that you didn't commit. The court has had a long history of punishing gang crime and treating gang crimes harshly. The police and the court does not like gangs, for very obvious reasons, so this is no different.
A Criminal Gang go and break into a bank at 3am
The gang member driving the van that took them there and took them away.
Innocent or guilty??
After all, all he did was drive a van from A - B and back again. He didn't break any driving laws. obeyed the speed limits etc etc.
Last edited:
Assuming he knew what was going on, he's guilty of being involved in bank robbery to a slightly lesser degree than the people who actually did the robbery. But not guilty of what other people do when he isn't even present.
In other words, I think he's guilty of what he actually did. That's the core of my position - that a person should only be convicted of a crime they're guilty of. Not other crimes that they're not guilty of because it's convenient or popular or whatever.
And your example is significantly different to this case anyway because none of the people convicted of murder murdered anyone.
A comparable situation using your example would be someone else stealing the getaway van and all of the gang being convicted of stealing that specific van. Despite the fact that none of them stole that van. Or any van. It's a lie, a deliberate false conviction for convenience. It's no different to planting evidence. No, it is different. It's worse because there isn't even any attempt to hide it. It's blatant corruption.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
It constitutes murder under the joint enterprise law only. Thus that is how they were prosecuted.
Being a passenger in someone's car who kills someone whilst drunk driving constitutes murder by joint enterprise?
I'm not even sure the driver would get a murder charge for that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Death by dangerous driving is the offense in that situation. Joint enterprise doesn't apply to all crimes, else we'd have our politicians being hung for treason with alarming regularity.
Look up the details of the joint enterprise law, how it is applied and why it is applied.
I think death by dangerous driving is too lenient btw, anyone who purposely drives whilst drunk in this day and age should be ostracised and deemed a social pariah, but it doesn't work that way.