Talk:Criminal conspiracy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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.[1] See Kamara v Director of Public Prosecutions,[2] as well as Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd v. D.P.P.[3] and Shaw v. D.P.P.[4]

References

  1. ^ lawjournal.mcgill.ca: "Conspiracy and Sedition as Canadian Political Crimes", v23 1977
  2. ^ Kamara v Director of Public Prosecutions [1974] AC 104, [1973] 3 WLR 198, [1973] 2 All ER 1242, 117 Sol Jo 581, 57 Cr App R 880, HL
  3. ^ [1972] 2 All E.R. 898 (H.L.) and [1973] 435 A.C.
  4. ^ [1962] A.C. 220 (H.L.).

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criminal_conspiracy/Archive_1&oldid=1121348049"