Talk:Criminal conspiracy

A European view

I can see the argument for this, but to me it looks like:

a) prosecution of precrime - ie. for things which have yet to occur and that once prevented, will not. Sanction against non-events?!

b) having the sanction against an offence increased by addition of extra charges of conspiracy as if it made it worse simply because it involved the agreement of others. Why is 10 people together prosecuted as 20 crimes, where 10 people separately is 10 crimes?

It looks like a very strict American justice system. --81.105.242.11 (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is better described as being prosecuted for attempted events rather than non-events. Britain and the USA do not accept the assassin being a bad shoot as a valid excuse for letting the man who paid him go free.

It is not "Why is 10 people together prosecuted as 20 crimes, where 10 people separately is 10 crimes?" but 10 people separately as 9 crimes. The gang leader who gave the orders could get off if he stayed at home rather than say entering the bank since he did not actually committed robbery. Conspiracy is a crime for imprisoning bosses. Also gangs are much more dangerous than individuals so gang members need punishing for committing crimes as a group. Andrew Swallow (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(I'm not entirely sure how to change things, but some of the English material on conspiracy seems manifestly wrong. For example, in the discussion of mens rea, it seems to be discussing American law? Further, it says that there needs to be agreement on all the major points (for the actus reus). I would contend that R v Nock says just the opposite; ie that all points need not be decided, rather only an agreement that the offence be committed needs to be reached. This must be beyond mere negotiation (R v Walker). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.91.241 (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have amended & updated some parts of this page which deal with the law in England & Wales to exclude material which actually does not relate to England & Wales, to update statutory references, to remove contentious material, and to expand the discussion of mens rea. DavidwinchUK (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say that in England & Wales the essence of a conspiracy offence is that an agreement has been made between two or more persons to commit a crime. The agreement itself & the intention to carry it through is what is required. There need not be an attempt to actually commit any crime. Even if the agreement would be impossible in reality to carry out the offence of conspiracy has occurred. So it is not prosecution for a non-event, or prosecution for an attempted event, it is prosecution for making an agreement with the intention of carrying it out (which if it were carried out would involve a crime being committed). DavidwinchUK (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Craig v U.S.

A conspiracy may be a continuing one; actors may drop out and others may drop in; the details of operation may change from time to time; the members need not know each other or the part played by others; a member may not need to know all the details of the plan of the operation; he must, however, know the purpose of the conspiracy and agree to become a party to a plan to effectuate that purpose [Craig U.S.C.C.A.Cal., 81 F.2d 816, 822]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.100.45 (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide view

I am removing the worldwide view citation. The reason is clear: conspiracy is descended from English common law, and it does not exist in European civil law and the Napoleonic code. As a result, a "worldwide view" as defined by the wikipedia template is essentially unattainable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalFailure (talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Han Twin Murder Conspiracy

While this article does contain the hyperlink to the Han Conspiracy wiki entry, I think the article would be better served if it expanded upon the reason this case is referenced. Also, if other cases were also referenced, as there are many more well-known cases that can stand as examples of the rule of law. Kelelain (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy to trespass

The "expansion" below is not encyclopedic content for an article like this. Drilling down into one specific case in one country makes no sense here. We need general encyclopedic content about conspiracy to trespass, not a random case study.

Here, nine students, who were nationals of Sierra Leone, appealed their convictions for conspiracy to trespass, and unlawful assembly. These persons, together with others who did not appeal, conspired to occupy the London premises of the High Commissioner for Sierra Leone in order to publicize grievances against the government of that country. Upon their arrival at the Commission, they threatened the caretaker with an imitation firearm and locked him in a reception room with ten other members of the staff. The students then held a press conference on the telephone, but the caretaker was able to contact the police, who arrived, released the prisoners, and arrested the accused. In this case the Court felt that the public interest was clearly involved because of the statutory duty of the British Government to protect diplomatic premises. Lauton J. delivered the judgment of the Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal from conviction. See Kamara v Director of Public Prosecutions, as well as Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd v. D.P.P. and Shaw v. D.P.P.

References

This level of detail is UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conspiracy (criminal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224144931/http://miami.fbi.gov/statutes/title_18/section241.htm to http://miami.fbi.gov/statutes/title_18/section241.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Some issues with the article to fix

First, the article only briefly mentions in passing how most European countries (outside the U.K.) do not traditionally recognize the crime of "criminal conspiracy", and even now only do so AFAIK in some limited situations relating to international law not under their respective domestic laws. We should make this fact more prominent in the article and if possible (as in reliable sources can be found on the subject) discuss why they have largely rejected having a laws relating to "crime conspiracy". Second, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that for a criminal conspiracy to have taken places Both U.K. and U.S. law that their needs to the actual intent at some point to commit a crime by the all those involved and that so long as the intent was there at some point then even if no further steps ever take place to follow through it's still a crime. This means that it would not be a "crime of conspiracy" if a group of people sat around discussing hypothetically how they might commit a crime together such as say robing a bank but with the clear understanding during the whole discussion that they would never actually go through with the crime in real life. Now of course I'm not sure how conspiracy law would apply where one person mistakenly thought the another person was serious about committing a crime together, while the other simply took it as a hypothetical or joke with no intent of committing said crime, such as in the plot to Alfred Hitchcock's film "Strangers on a Train" (I'm assuming here that because not all parties did not actually "an agreement" even if one mistakenly thought so that only the one who followed through would be guilty under U.K. and U.S. law (if that's not the case then let's clarify that in the article.). Basically, we could be more clear in the article that "an agreement" in this context does not include simply a "hypothetical plan" since no Mens rea is present given that there was never any actually "agreement that a course of conduct be pursued" merely hypothesizing as to what said "course of action" might look like if they ever were serious about committing such a crime. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Ekibastuz Kokshetsu 1150 kv transmission line

Please talk this topic 79.121.73.241 (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction in the intro

The lead seems to include a direct contradiction. It first says a conspiracy “may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense”. It then almost immediately says that no steps need be taken in furtherance of the plan to constitute one. These both cannot be true. It goes on to mention acteus reus, but not in a way that resolves the conflict. In American law, some act would need to be committed, as opposed to just guys talking about doing something. Sychonic (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You're creating an unnecessary problem by leaving out the words "in most countries". They are there for a reason. In many countries, mens rea (the guilty mind) is a crime, even before any act to carry out the plan. Planning to break the law is always wrong everywhere, and in those countries the mere planning is punishable.

In religious history it goes to what Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount, specifically (Matthew 5:21 & 22: Jesus says that anger leads to murder, and anger is just as bad as murder itself. It is what's in the heart that really counts. Note the current situation, where angry, young, white men commit so many mass shootings. Anger and guns are a bad combination, and they are getting riled up and made angry by conservative conspiracy theorists and politicians who legislate to make sure they can be armed with the most lethal weapons. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to criminal conspiracy and civil conspiracy. per discussion consensus, WP:NATDIS, and consensus-via-compromise. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

---

• conspiracy (criminal) → Conspiracy in criminal law
• conspiracy (civil) → Conspiracy in civil law

– "Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation"; the proposed titles are more precise, easily understood, as well as less awkward than the current title. I would also support civil conspiracy and criminal conspiracy. (t · c) buidhe 06:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support. makes sense. Ebbedlila (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Criminal conspiracy and Civil conspiracy per WP:NATDIS. The terms are often used and already redirect to these articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.