In no other law is broken, should conspiracy be a crime?

[Kelley1]

For example, Ryan, Ava, and Brandon plan a bank robbery. They first visit the bank to assess its security. They decide what each will do at the scene. Finally, they pool their money and buy a gun. Law enforcement can charge all three with conspiracy to commit robbery based on their preparatory acts. It does not matter whether they ever commit or attempt to commit the robbery and even if they discover than none of them have temperament to actually attempt to rob a bank.

[abc3643]

I will let Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute (LII) legal dictionary, Wex, answer this question.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy

conspiracy

Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. Most U. S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement. An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U. S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense.”

Conspiracy generally carries a penalty on its own. In addition, conspiracies allow for derivative liability where conspirators can also be punished for the illegal acts carried out by other members, even if they were not directly involved. Thus, where one or more members of the conspiracy committed illegal acts to further the conspiracy's goals, all members of the conspiracy may be held accountable for those acts.

Where no one has actually committed a criminal act, the punishment varies. Some conspiracy statutes assign the same punishment for conspiracy as for the target offense. Others impose lesser penalties.

Conspiracy applies to both civil and criminal offenses. For example, you may conspire to commit murder, or conspire to commit fraud.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/overt_act

overt act

Generally, an overt act refers to a specific and observable action or conduct that is taken by an individual, typically in furtherance of a particular purpose or intent. While the term "overt act" has different legal meanings depending on the context in which it is used, it is usually used in connection with criminal law with the implication generally being that an individual who conducts an overt act shows an intention to commit a crime.

In the context of conspiracy charges, an overt act is an action taken by one or more individuals to further the illegal agreement or plan to commit a crime. Not all jurisdictions require overt acts to prove conspiracy, but in those that do, the overt act serves as evidence of the individuals' intent to participate in the conspiracy. It is important to note that the overt act doesn't have to be the actual commission of the crime; it can be any act that demonstrates the individuals' commitment to the conspiracy's objectives.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspirator

conspirator

A conspirator is defined as a person who is part of a conspiracy, which is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act. A conspirator may be charged with “conspiracy,” which is its own independent crime. Further, a conspirator may be held liable, or legally responsible, for the crimes committed by their co-conspirators, even if they did not personally commit the crimes. A conspirator can be charged with both conspiracy to commit a particular crime and also with the crime itself in cases where the crime was completed. A person must have agreed to participate in the criminal undertaking in order to be charged as a conspirator, but the agreement need not be formal or even in writing. In other words, a person who is unaware of their own participation in a crime cannot be convicted as a conspirator. For example, a person would not be considered a conspirator if they drove a friend to the bank because an individual told them they needed to make an ATM withdrawal, but instead robbed the bank at gunpoint.

=============

As for me, I agree with LII. Thinking about crimes should not be criminal, but preparing for one should be at some point.

This goes to the basics of crime and criminal behavior. For there to be a crime, you need two factors:

• Mens Rea - having a guilty mind. That is, knowing what you are doing is wrong.
• Actus Reus - committing a criminal act.

From this perspective, just thinking about committing a crime is not a problem. But, once we act on it in some way, then there's a crime.

>>> This is a very good question, by the way. Better than the usual questions you ask.

[MrOracle]

What you are advocating is "pre-crime" - akin to The Minority Report - or "thought-crime" - akin to Orwell's 1984. Both stories illustrate why this would become horrible tyranny sooner or later - and usually sooner.

[goaded]

It's current US law.

[SotiCoto]

If they don't even attempt it then it is fuckin stupid to go charging them with a crime... but it sounds like the sort of stupidity that law enforcement twats engage in on a constant basis.

[Kelley1]

I agree but sadly that is how it is in the USA. It is easy to plan the robbery but to actually look a teller in the eye and pull a gun on her takes it to whole new level that most people can't do. It is like, it is easy to plan a murder and to buy a long distance rifle with a scope. Then to practice shooting so you don't miss the target. However, when it comes down to pulling the trigger to shoot the person, likely that is something you can't do. You could shoot a manikin but not a person.

[Surely]

Wasn’t there a movie, “Time Cop”? Or something like that. Where you could be arrested for just thinking about committing a crime. Most people would be jailed!

[abc3643]

You are thinking of 2002's excellent Steven Spielberg / Tom Cruise film "Minority Report".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4RgNWmiTVc

[Surely]

@abc3643 I remembered Tom Cruise was in it. But would never guessed the title. Thank you.

[abc3643]

"Time Cop" was a movie involving Jean-Claude Van Damme. I didn't see it.

[Juxtapose]

No that should not be punishable by the law because while in that specific case it may make sense it is going to be abused to hell and back by the deep state to institute thoughtcrime.

[NotSlowestSloth]

How will a government or a social institution function when there's no crime to punish?

[Danny_dan92]

Conspiracy theories is directly associated with the 1st amendment

[MrGSpotHer]

It should be illegal

[ChinaGrove]

I would, no.