This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criminal conspiracy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | On 3 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to conspiracy in criminal law. The result of the discussion was moved to " criminal conspiracy" and " civil conspiracy". |
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)
Please talk this topic 79.121.73.241 ( talk) 06:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
– "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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criminal conspiracy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | On 3 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to conspiracy in criminal law. The result of the discussion was moved to " criminal conspiracy" and " civil conspiracy". |
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)
Please talk this topic 79.121.73.241 ( talk) 06:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
– "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)