Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Common Design - Fair?

  • 05-01-2011 1:20pm
    #1
    Lawstudent1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭


    Just looking at the doctrine of common design it seems to me that it imposes less culpability for murder and lowers the degree of mens rea required for a secondary offender. Two people plan to rob a bank. Both agree that they will kill anyone who gets in their way. However when they rob the bank, only one of the men actually kills someone. The other opts not to when push comes to shove. Is it really just in such a scenario to impose the same form of culpability on the other man simply because he agreed to a common goal?


Comments

  • #2
    usernamegoes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes


    It's been a while since I have read about common design, but I must say that I think there is a case to be made for imposing culpability upon those who engage in criminal acts with a partner where it is subjectively reasonably foreseeable that the partner may use force with intention to kill or cause serious harm.

    It reminds me of the US crime of felony murder where any person engaged in a felony that casuses the death of a person is guilty of murder.

    Again, it's been a while since I've read it about CD so perhaps you might remind me of the test.



    Lawstudent1 wrote: »
    Just looking at the doctrine of common design it seems to me that it imposes less culpability for murder and lowers the degree of mens rea required for a secondary offender. Two people plan to rob a bank. Both agree that they will kill anyone who gets in their way. However when they rob the bank, only one of the men actually kills someone. The other opts not to when push comes to shove. Is it really just in such a scenario to impose the same form of culpability on the other man simply because he agreed to a common goal?


  • #3
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,580 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    If you want "fair", don't rob banks.
    Lawstudent1 wrote: »
    common design
    Common enterprise?
    Two people plan to rob a bank.
    Robbery is theft with menaces.
    Both agree that they will kill anyone who gets in their way.
    Isn't this naive for a bank robber?

    Semantically, they agreed not to kill anyone, but they have not agreed to not hurt anyone.

    Someone getting hurt is a predictable event in a bank robbery. Someone getting killed is a predictable event if someone is hurt.


  • #4
    Jarndyce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 217 ✭✭Jarndyce


    Victor wrote: »
    Common enterprise?

    They are the same thing.

    As for the OP, yes, the scenario that you outlined is absolutely fair. I'd be interested to hear an argument to the contrary.


  • #5
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    Lawstudent1 wrote: »
    Just looking at the doctrine of common design it seems to me that it imposes less culpability for murder and lowers the degree of mens rea required for a secondary offender. Two people plan to rob a bank. Both agree that they will kill anyone who gets in their way. However when they rob the bank, only one of the men actually kills someone. The other opts not to when push comes to shove. Is it really just in such a scenario to impose the same form of culpability on the other man simply because he agreed to a common goal?

    Common design starts from the position that two people agree to do something together, and it doesn't matter which component part each carries out of the main enterprise. If a plan is made to kill someone during a bank robbery, or which has the real risk that that will happen, e.g. if the plan is to take a loaded gun, then all participants who signed up to the plan are liable to charge for murder if a killing takes place.

    The other (non-killer) can be acquitted if he has broken with the common design or there is doubt on that point. For example, the evidence shows that before the trigger was pulled he shouted 'No, don't shoot him'. That would indicate that he abandoned the joint enterprise.

    I don't think there is anything unfair in the doctrine, fully understood.


Advertisement