Why are the rules surrounding extended joint criminal enterprise controversial?

The rules surrounding extended joint criminal enterprise, also known as the "doctrine of common purpose" or "joint enterprise", are controversial for several reasons:

1. Overreach: Critics argue that the doctrine is too broad and can potentially criminalize individuals who were merely associated with the crime, but did not actively participate in it. For example, if a person is present at the scene of a crime but does not directly contribute to the crime, they can still be held liable under joint enterprise.

2. Intent: The doctrine can hold individuals accountable for unintended consequences. For instance, if a group commits a crime and an unforeseen death occurs, all members of the group can be charged with murder, even if they did not intend for anyone to die.

3. Disproportionate Impact: There are concerns that the doctrine disproportionately affects certain groups, particularly young people and minorities. This is because these groups are more likely to be in situations where the doctrine can be applied, such as gang-related activities.

4. Fairness: There is a fundamental question of fairness. Is it fair to hold someone responsible for the actions of others, especially when those actions were not anticipated or intended? Critics argue that individuals should only be held accountable for their own actions and intentions.

5. Legal Complexity: The doctrine is complex and can be difficult for juries to understand. This can lead to inconsistent application and outcomes.

These controversies have led to calls for reform or abolition of the doctrine in some jurisdictions.