Talk:Criminal conspiracy: Difference between revisions
m suggestion for clarification or expansion of case(s) already cited or that can be cited as examples of how the law is applied |
m Cgingold moved page Talk:Conspiracy (crime) to Talk:Conspiracy (criminal): this is the proper term - in line with other articles: Conspiracy (civil) & Conspiracy (political) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 07:41, 23 November 2013
 | Law B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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)
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)