NationStates Jolt Archive


Conspiracy

Llewdor
14-08-2006, 19:28
Why is conspiracy to do something a crime if that planned thing never takes place?

Sure, I can see how I'd be guilty of something if I conspired with others to blow up a bunch of planes and then they went and blew up some planes, but if the planes never get blown up, what have we really done? We could have been LARPing, or engaging in a thought experiment.
Smunkeeville
14-08-2006, 19:30
I think it depends on how far you go.

For example if I joke to someone about hiring a hit man to kill my husband, then that's okay (although not very nice) but if I were to go out researching, and actually try to hire one, then maybe that's too far.
JuNii
14-08-2006, 19:32
Why is conspiracy to do something a crime if that planned thing never takes place?

Sure, I can see how I'd be guilty of something if I conspired with others to blow up a bunch of planes and then they went and blew up some planes, but if the planes never get blown up, what have we really done? We could have been LARPing, or engaging in a thought experiment.
it also depends on the situation... playing a "James Bond" type LARP is one thing... but sitting around and actually planning it in minute detail is quite another.
United Chicken Kleptos
14-08-2006, 19:34
Why is conspiracy to do something a crime if that planned thing never takes place?

Sure, I can see how I'd be guilty of something if I conspired with others to blow up a bunch of planes and then they went and blew up some planes, but if the planes never get blown up, what have we really done? We could have been LARPing, or engaging in a thought experiment.

Well, it's a hard crime to prove, but it is a crime if you intended to do it, but were caught before you could.
Not bad
14-08-2006, 19:34
Probably so they can attempt to stop things like a group of people trying to blow a bunch of airliners to smithereens and kill thousands of people. Stuff like that.
Arthais101
14-08-2006, 19:36
Well, it's a hard crime to prove, but it is a crime if you intended to do it, but were caught before you could.

That's actually usually "attempt" not "conspiracy"
Andaluciae
14-08-2006, 19:37
If it's clear that the intent was to commit a crime, then conspiracy charges stick.
Llewdor
14-08-2006, 19:41
If it's clear that the intent was to commit a crime, then conspiracy charges stick.
But is that knowable?

Imagine the guy who intricately plans his wife's murder to relieve stress, but has no intention of actually killing her. If she find the documents, she might call the police, but we can't know if he actually intended to kill her.
Farnhamia
14-08-2006, 19:41
According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29), conspiracy is chargeable when two or more people plan to break the law.
Safalra
14-08-2006, 19:43
But is that knowable?

Imagine the guy who intricately plans his wife's murder to relieve stress, but has no intention of actually killing her. If she find the documents, she might call the police, but we can't know if he actually intended to kill her.
We can never be certain even when an actual crime takes place that the suspect really committed it. This is why the courts have to find someone guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Allers
14-08-2006, 19:46
there is no conspiracy,like there is no sasquach.
there are only things you want to believe in
Arthais101
14-08-2006, 19:53
If it's clear that the intent was to commit a crime, then conspiracy charges stick.

also incorrect. Conspiracy requires two ore more people taking steps to do it.

Intent manifests in an attempt to commit a crime. You can not be charged with committing a crime, and attempting to commit a crime, as attempt is by nature a lesser included offense to the actual crime.

Conspiracy is not necessarily a lesser included offense, and thus you can be convicted of a crime, and with conspiracy to commit a crime. You can not however be convicted of both committing a crime, and attempting to commit the same crime, as the attempt is included in the crime itself.
Arthais101
14-08-2006, 19:54
Imagine the guy who intricately plans his wife's murder to relieve stress, but has no intention of actually killing her. If she find the documents, she might call the police, but we can't know if he actually intended to kill her.

That is not conspiracy. Conspiracy requires working with at least one more person.
JuNii
14-08-2006, 19:55
But is that knowable?

Imagine the guy who intricately plans his wife's murder to relieve stress, but has no intention of actually killing her. If she find the documents, she might call the police, but we can't know if he actually intended to kill her.
then that is conspiracy to commit murder.

the fact that he does this to relieve stress can be used against him.
Deep Kimchi
14-08-2006, 19:57
Probably so they can attempt to stop things like a group of people trying to blow a bunch of airliners to smithereens and kill thousands of people. Stuff like that.

No, no, no. There are those who say that we must first allow them to commit the crime, i.e., blow a bunch of airliners to smithereens and kill thousands of people - FIRST.

Then, we can sift through the debris, and find the odd bit of DNA, and put that on trial (a fair trial, of course).

They tell me that's the best way to stop terrorism - allow it to happen, and prosecute specific remains.
Arthais101
14-08-2006, 20:01
then that is conspiracy to commit murder.



No it is not, a conspiracy requires at least 2 people working together. It is not conspiracy if he acted alone. Likewise it may not be attempt unless he took positive steps towards that goal.

Doing that may, or may not, be any crime at all, depending on whether making plans constitutes a positive step. Even if he does, he has the defense that he had no intention of it.

It is NOT conspiracy if he did it alone.
Allers
14-08-2006, 20:07
What is a conspiracy?.
When do you believe it?
Arthais101
14-08-2006, 20:10
Fundamentally there are three crimes:

The crime of doing

The crime of attempting to do

The crime of conspiring to do

Attempt and conspiracy are not the same crimes. Attempt requires an overt act, conspiracy requires planning with at least two people and an overt act done by at least one of them.

You can be convicted of both doing the crime, and conspiring to do it, likewise you can be convicted of conspiring to commit a crime, and attempting to commit the crime, but you can not be convicted of both doing the crime, and attempting to do it.
JuNii
14-08-2006, 20:11
No it is not, a conspiracy requires at least 2 people working together. It is not conspiracy if he acted alone. Likewise it may not be attempt unless he took positive steps towards that goal.

Doing that may, or may not, be any crime at all, depending on whether making plans constitutes a positive step. Even if he does, he has the defense that he had no intention of it.

It is NOT conspiracy if he did it alone.
I believe it does change when it's actually written down as his scenario said. for now that is hard evidence that the event (spouces murder) is planned in detail.

if it was just him talking to himself and someone overheard him, then it's not conspiracy.
Arthais101
14-08-2006, 20:15
I believe it does change when it's actually written down as his scenario said. for now that is hard evidence that the event (spouces murder) is planned in detail.

if it was just him talking to himself and someone overheard him, then it's not conspiracy.

No, it does not. Conspiracy requires 2 or more people. Period. no matter how much he planned it, no matter how much he figured it out, no matter how many details he considered, it is NOT conspiracy if he did it alone.

It MAY be attempt, but conspiracy MUST have 2 or more people involved.
Allers
14-08-2006, 20:18
Fundamentally there are three crimes:

The crime of doing

The crime of attempting to do

The crime of conspiring to do

Attempt and conspiracy are not the same crimes. Attempt requires an overt act, conspiracy requires planning with at least two people and an overt act done by at least one of them.

You can be convicted of both doing the crime, and conspiring to do it, likewise you can be convicted of conspiring to commit a crime, and attempting to commit the crime, but you can not be convicted of both doing the crime, and attempting to do it.


and Who decide it?
Arthais101
14-08-2006, 20:19
and Who decide it?

a jury.
Allers
14-08-2006, 20:27
a jury.
who is elected?
Arthais101
14-08-2006, 20:28
who is elected?

go away troll you bother me.
JuNii
14-08-2006, 20:36
No, it does not. Conspiracy requires 2 or more people. Period. no matter how much he planned it, no matter how much he figured it out, no matter how many details he considered, it is NOT conspiracy if he did it alone.

It MAY be attempt, but conspiracy MUST have 2 or more people involved.
one person was arrested for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act when she wrote a letter (and only a letter) about planting a bomb on a cruise ship, she left this letter in a place where it would be discovered. no other person was involved.

for those curious, she was trying to get kicked off of the ship so that she can spend her vacation at home with her BF and not with her parents. :rolleyes:
Allers
14-08-2006, 20:36
go away troll you bother me.

you want to talk about it?
Arthais101
14-08-2006, 20:38
one person was arrested for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act when she wrote a letter (and only a letter) about planting a bomb on a cruise ship, she left this letter in a place where it would be discovered. no other person was involved.

for those curious, she was trying to get kicked off of the ship so that she can spend her vacation at home with her BF and not with her parents. :rolleyes:

do you have a specific link to this? It could be that the conspiracy charge was assumed as it would have involved writing a letter TO someone ELSE, thus implicitly involving another person, even if that person didn't exist.

My point is, if it appeared she was writing a letter to someone else, then by definition this creates the appearance of TWO people complicit in the act. It would depend on the details of the letter, but if it appeared that someone else was involved, then that may well have been enough to substantiate an initial conspiracy charge.
Andaluciae
14-08-2006, 20:39
also incorrect. Conspiracy requires two ore more people taking steps to do it.

Intent manifests in an attempt to commit a crime. You can not be charged with committing a crime, and attempting to commit a crime, as attempt is by nature a lesser included offense to the actual crime.

Conspiracy is not necessarily a lesser included offense, and thus you can be convicted of a crime, and with conspiracy to commit a crime. You can not however be convicted of both committing a crime, and attempting to commit the same crime, as the attempt is included in the crime itself.
I assumed that was understood.
JuNii
14-08-2006, 20:44
do you have a specific link to this? It could be that the conspiracy charge was assumed as it would have involved writing a letter TO someone ELSE, thus implicitly involving another person, even if that person didn't exist.
linky (http://starbulletin.com/2003/05/15/news/story1.html)

also for the definiton of Conspiracy (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm)... it also includes..

A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part.

so by having a detailed plan written down, can also be seen as corrispondence with someone else, or at least knowingly undertaking of an unlawful nature of said plan.

Remember, he did say it was written down as stress relief... if it wasn't written down then no it's not a conspiracy.
Arthais101
14-08-2006, 20:53
linky (http://starbulletin.com/2003/05/15/news/story1.html)

From your article:

Ferguson was indicted by a federal Grand Jury a week ago with two counts of giving false information about an attempt to kill passengers on mass transportation, each punishable by a maximum of 20 years imprisonment.

False information about an attempt. no charge of conspiracy that I see there.

A conspiracy MUST involve more than one person. As you quoted:

A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part.


Once you take part in a plan, even if your part is minor, even if you don't know who the other members of the plan are, that can be a conspiracy.

But there MUST be OTHER MEMBERS of the plan, not just you.

If a husband writes down his plans to kill his wife, even if they're intricate, even if they spell out exactly how he plans to do it, if he involves nobody else in his plans, and those plans have no indication that there are others involved in those plans, there is no conspiracy.

A conspiracy MUST involve more than one person, otherwise it's not a conspiracy. If this husband does it all on his own, and no reference to anyone else (even a vague reference to "another person", even if that person isn't named) then it is not a conspiracy, as he acted totally alone.
Allers
14-08-2006, 20:57
From your article:



False information about an attempt. no charge of conspiracy that I see there.

A conspiracy MUST involve more than one person. As you quoted:



Once you take part in a plan, even if your part is minor, even if you don't know who the other members of the plan are, that can be a conspiracy.

But there MUST be OTHER MEMBERS of the plan, not just you.

If a husband writes down his plans to kill his wife, even if they're intricate, even if they spell out exactly how he plans to do it, if he involves nobody else in his plans, and those plans have no indication that there are others involved in those plans, there is no conspiracy.

A conspiracy MUST involve more than one person, otherwise it's not a conspiracy. If this husband does it all on his own, and no reference to anyone else (even a vague reference to "another person", even if that person isn't named) then it is not a conspiracy, as he acted totally alone.

it is nothin as legal als you would like it to be,,,,
Remember,it only goes with wat YOU want to believe,laws are not necesary
JuNii
14-08-2006, 21:14
the point the lawyers will have to prove on the "Detailed written plans on killing your spouse" is whether or not others are involved.

after all, how we (non legalize) define things is nothing to when lawyers get involved.

if it can be shown that the supposed plans were for someone else, then it is conspiracy. meanwhile the author of the plans needs to prove that it was for nothing more than stress relief. something that is rather hard to prove.
Arthais101
14-08-2006, 21:22
the point the lawyers will have to prove on the "Detailed written plans on killing your spouse" is whether or not others are involved.

after all, how we (non legalize) define things is nothing to when lawyers get involved.

if it can be shown that the supposed plans were for someone else, then it is conspiracy. meanwhile the author of the plans needs to prove that it was for nothing more than stress relief. something that is rather hard to prove.

Generally you're right, a conspiracy charge can not be substantiated if there is no indication that the plans were not "meant for someone else", or there was not somehow some other person involved in the action.

Moreover, it may not be necessary to prove that. An attempt charge (which, absent some indication of another party, is all those plans would get you) must have an "overt act". Depending your jurisdiction, writing plans may constitute an overt act, it may not.

If the jurisdiction states that merely having a plan is not an overt act, and you must take affirmative steps to bring that plan to fruition, then simply having plans is not attempt, it may be nothing at all.

That would depend entirely on the jurisdiction in question and what precident in that regard tells you.

And just to put it out there, in case it's not readily apparent by now..

<----- lawyer
Ashmoria
14-08-2006, 21:58
who is elected?
in the united states the appropriate prosecutor has to decide to persue the case (depending on juristidiction). he is most often elected. he either puts it before a judge (very often elected) in a preliminary hearing or a grand jury (20ish people from the general voting public who are asked to serve on a random basis). if the judge or grandjury finds that there is sufficient evidence of the crimes charged to proceed it goes before a judge (very often elected) and/or jury (12 people, always appointed) to decide guilt or innocence.

it is the prosecutors burden to prove that defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

the limited resources of prosecutors means that they dont normally deal in bullshit plans to kill a spouse that never go beyond the thinking stage.

when it comes to big plans for terrorist acts that are foiled before they get to kill anyone, they go with what evidence they have and try to prove that the conspirators were serious about the plan. buying explosives is usually enough to get a conviction.
Allers
14-08-2006, 22:05
when it comes to big plans for terrorist acts that are foiled before they get to kill anyone, they go with what evidence they have and try to prove that the conspirators were serious about the plan. buying explosives is usually enough to get a conviction.
sad that the dealers are not prosecuted
Magew
14-08-2006, 22:14
Allers, there are legitimate uses for explosives.
Allers
14-08-2006, 22:16
Allers, there are legitimate uses for explosives.
Like there is for war :headbang:
Ashmoria
14-08-2006, 22:23
sad that the dealers are not prosecuted
in most places you have to have a license to buy true explosives. you cant drop into the blasters supply store and buy C4 for example.

the bomb that destroyed the oklahoma city federal building was made from commonly available materials. nitrogen fertilizer and fuel oil, i think, plus other completely legal materials.

there is no dealer to prosecute when all the ingredients are legal to sell
Allers
14-08-2006, 22:28
in most places you have to have a license to buy true explosives. you cant drop into the blasters supply store and buy C4 for example.

the bomb that destroyed the oklahoma city federal building was made from commonly available materials. nitrogen fertilizer and fuel oil, i think, plus other completely legal materials.

there is no dealer to prosecute when all the ingredients are legal to sell
so i can build a bomb with spikers blow myself away with a coca cola t shirt,nobody will be responsible?
Arthais101
14-08-2006, 22:30
so i can build a bomb with spikers blow myself away with a coca cola t shirt,nobody will be responsible?

Depends, were all the materials used to build the explosive legally purchasable? Did the suppliers have reason to suspect you would use them illegally?

If the answers are, in order, yes, and no. Then no, they can't be held responsible.
Ashmoria
14-08-2006, 22:45
so i can build a bomb with spikers blow myself away with a coca cola t shirt,nobody will be responsible?
YOU would be responsible. the maker and seller of the Tshirt are innocent businessmen.
Llewdor
15-08-2006, 00:39
and attempting to commit a crime, as attempt is by nature a lesser included offense to the actual crime.
I never understood that, either. Why are the punishments typically smaller for attempted crimes rather than the actual crimes? Why am I rewarded for being incompetent?
Arthais101
15-08-2006, 00:48
I never understood that, either. Why are the punishments typically smaller for attempted crimes rather than the actual crimes? Why am I rewarded for being incompetent?

Social harm. The theory is, your punishment should bare relative to the damage you caused it. So if you murder someone you:

a) planned to kill someone

b) killed them.

With an attempt, yes you planned, yes you tried to carry out, yes that very action does damage to a society...but you didn't actually KILL anyone.

Therefore by trying, and failing, the societal harm is less, because nobody's actually...dead.
Llewdor
18-08-2006, 21:36
Social harm. The theory is, your punishment should bare relative to the damage you caused it. So if you murder someone you:

a) planned to kill someone

b) killed them.

With an attempt, yes you planned, yes you tried to carry out, yes that very action does damage to a society...but you didn't actually KILL anyone.

Therefore by trying, and failing, the societal harm is less, because nobody's actually...dead.
But that's stupid.

My actions are the same. If I do exactly the same thing either way, then the seriousness of my actions can't be different based on outcomes that were beyond my control.

If I randomly fire a gun out my window, why does the justice system reward me for being lucky enough not to have killed anyone? I was still horribly reckless, and it's my actions to which you should be reacting - not some largely unrelated outcomes.

We should not reward incompetent criminals.