Quick before it's removed by YT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFTaQHR8Qjw
Watch and discuss.
Quick before it's removed by YT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFTaQHR8Qjw
Watch and discuss.
Last edited by blackadder; 07-08-2014 at 06:02 AM.
I'll go out on a limb and say there's nothing wrong with the law of joint enterprise.
"I have adopted the Italian way of life... I may stab you!"
— Heidi
"You make the British Lion seem like a declawed, toothless, neutered fat tabby with the mange."
— Weidmann1939
"Maybe you think your being clever."
— Weidmann1939
I don't read the OP's posts and nor is he currently a member.
However, as I've elaborated before, I don't believe that the person who directly commits a killing is always more morally culpable than any other person involved in a crime. Taking an extreme example, no reasonable person would argue that if a gang all fired at the victim, that gang members who missed, or inflicted non-lethal wounds, were less culpable than those who inflicted lethal wounds. Also those who direct others to commit murder are at least, if not more morally culpable than those who directly carry them out. No one would regard death sentences for high ranking Nazi officials as an excessive application of the law, even though they for the most part killed no one directly.
None of these uses of joint enterprise strike me as particularly excessive. Luring the victim into a honey trap, being part of a gang that collectively kills someone or hiring a hit man to carry out the murder don't reduce your responsibility for the crime.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks