Brothers in arms or making a murderer? Public opinion on joint criminal enterprise

AI Summary

Extended joint criminal enterprise law conflicts with community views on culpability, awareness and foresight.
Low culpability threshold leads to murder convictions with profound, longstanding personal and social consequences.
Mandatory sentencing for murder under joint enterprise creates injustice and undermines public confidence, defeating sentencing rationales.

AI Summary

Basic summary

Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2025 May 19;33(3):850-875. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2025.2470648. eCollection 2026.

ABSTRACT

Debate continues in the academic and legal community as to the legitimacy of murder convictions based upon the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise and other forms of extended criminal liability such as ‘extended joint criminal enterprise’, ‘aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring’, and ‘constructive (or “felony”) murder’. To some extent, these cases revolve around not so much what people did but around concepts crucially related to awareness and foresight. Serious questions have been raised about such a low threshold for culpability in light of the harsh, profound, and longstanding effects that a conviction for murder automatically attracts. Drawing on focus group data, this article argues that the law of extended joint criminal enterprise is clearly at odds with community views. Moreover, current mandatory sentencing arrangements for a murder conviction under the doctrine are seen to create injustice and undermine public confidence – thereby defeating the principal rationales for mandatory sentencing in these cases.

PMID:42211414 | PMC:PMC13215401 | DOI:10.1080/13218719.2025.2470648

Document this CPD