Your View of Justice Watch

FeedTheGoat
Badges: 0
#1
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#1
A man goes with another man to break into a factory. They climb over the gate and subsequently onto the factory roof. A neighbour spots them and calls the police. The police arrive and see the two men on the roof. A police officer climbs on the roof to apprehend them.

The police officer is shot by one of the men. The police officer is killed. The other man had no idea that his accomplice was carrying the gun. He in no way could have known that his partner was going to kill anyone. Bentley said "let them have it Chris" but claims to have meant give the gun to the police. Either way..

They are eventually arrested. The man who shot the police officer is too young to be executed of murder. The other man is charged with murder for 'joint enterprise' and is subsequently executed. This was in 1952.

Bentley was the man executed. Craig was only 16 and sentenced to being detained at her majesty's pleasure.

Bentley has since received a full pardon post-humously. He only had a mental age of around 11.

Should he have been executed? Or was he innocent of murder? Or was his execution justified?

Your views?

Full story here if you haven't heard it in full before... http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/derek_bentley.htm

There is also a film about it but it's quite emotive.
0
reply
Hurricane_Herd
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 12 years ago
#2
(Original post by Dantanion)
...The police officer is killed. The other man had no idea that his accomplice was carrying the gun. He in no way could have known that his partner was going to kill anyone...

I find it very difficult to understand how we know for a fact that the accomplice did not know the other man was carrying a gun...?

Therefore, assuming the accomplice knew he had the gun...action justified.
0
reply
FeedTheGoat
Badges: 0
#3
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#3
But in the law you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew. You cannot merely assert that he did. He denied it. Therefore doubt. So it stood that he didn't know about the gun.
0
reply
Hurricane_Herd
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 12 years ago
#4
(Original post by Dantanion)
But in the law you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew. You cannot merely assert that he did. He denied it. Therefore doubt. So it stood that he didn't know about the gun.

yes but the fact clearly remains that he did know about the gun...it is clearly a lie, i know i would have said the same thing in a similar situation, and by the sounds of it the jury though the same...he got the correct punishment (imo)
0
reply
FeedTheGoat
Badges: 0
#5
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#5
How can you say that he KNEW his crazy friend has a gun?
0
reply
Hurricane_Herd
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 12 years ago
#6
well we don't but neither do we know that he did'nt know either, since they were BOTH invloved in the breaking and entering of a property...you would have to assume that some planning had been made, over what particular methods to use, etc. Of course, he would have known that his partner had a gun...i think you are being unreasonable suggesting he did'nt know. Also if he did'nt know for fact, he would have held a suspicion...! it is merely a case, of the accomplice trying to escape the long arms of the law...i am afraid !
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 12 years ago
#7
(Original post by Dantanion)
A man goes with another man to break into a factory. They climb over the gate and subsequently onto the factory roof.
Both are guilty of the attempted theft/housebreaking/whatever you want to call it obviously.

The police officer is shot by one of the men. The police officer is killed. The other man had no idea that his accomplice was carrying the gun. He in no way could have known that his partner was going to kill anyone. Bentley said "let them have it Chris" but claims to have meant give the gun to the police. Either way..
In Scotland we have a thing called Art and Part Liability, which basically means that, for example, a get-away driver can be charged with robbing a bank if he was aware of the plan and active in it.

However stepping outside a prearranged plan does not fall within this. If the man did not know his accomplice had a gun, then he is completely innocent. If however he did know that a loaded gun was being carried then it is perfectly acceptable to presume that he knew it may be used to kill someone.

They are eventually arrested. The man who shot the police officer is too young to be executed of murder.
I don't agree with execution either.

The other man is charged with murder for 'joint enterprise' and is subsequently executed. This was in 1952.
Well I don't think the words "let him have it" suggest that he knew the gun was being carried, so unless there was evidence to suggest he did then I believe he was wrongfully convicted.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (281)
80.52%
Leave (68)
19.48%

Watched Threads

View All