Was "conspiracy" always a crime?

[TripleB]

I read recently that a British man was arrested and charged with possessing bomb-making information. He did not have bomb-making items. He simply had downloaded instructions from the internet. Simply having the information is currently criminal in the UK.

I know from my limited time on Earth that government likes to erode civil rights slowly over time. Currently "intent" is no longer a requirement for federal prosecutors to charge you with something. 50 years ago, mens rea was a requirement for all crimes, but today it doesn't matter whether you intended to commit a crime or not, or even if you knew a law existed, regardless of how obscure, you are a criminal.

I question whether "conspiracy" has always been a crime or is it something new that's been cooked up in the last century? It's illegal to "conspire" with someone to commit a crime, even if you do not have the means to commit the crime, nor the intention.

For example, if a person were to go on the internet and post on a discussion board, "who wants to help me blow up X building," that person has no intention nor means to commit the act. *It could even be a joke and it's illegal*

Has this always been the case? Or is "conspiracy" crimes just another notch in the erosion of freedoms that will eventually make thinking about a crime being illegal.

[stone]

That case you mention is all the more amazing because they were victims of a burglary and had given the police a memory stick that had CCV footage of the burglary taking place. The police arrested them for the other material on the memory stick. Everything on the stick was and still is available on the internet.

[stone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)
"In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future."
"The offence of conspiracy to murder was created by section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861."

[stone]

The guy sounds like one of the characters out of that "Four Lions" movie:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/2 ... cin-recipe
"A man who kept a recipe for a deadly poison and documents about how to make bombs has been jailed for two years and three months.

Asim Kausar, 25, from Bolton, Greater Manchester, kept the information on a computer memory stick that contained details about the toxin ricin, assassination and torture techniques and instructions for making improvised explosive devices.

The documents were entitled Improvised Munitions Handbook and Unconventional Warfare Devices and Techniques.

The information came to light only after Kausar's family suffered a burglary, when Kauser's father handed the memory stick to police so officers could view CCTV images of the break-in recorded on the device.

Kauser told police he had downloaded the information out of "curiosity and a thirst for knowledge".

He pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing at Manchester crown court to four counts of collecting a record of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism between 2009 and 2011.

The prosecution accepted the defendant had not disseminated the information and had not put it to any practical use. There was also no evidence to suggest Kausar had any links to terrorists.

Sentencing him, Judge Andrew Gilbart QC said: "I accept that all of this material is available on the internet and can be bought from retailers such as Amazon and I accept some of it is out of date.

"But that makes them no less dangerous or any less useful to a person committing an act of terrorism."

Riel Karmy-Jones, prosecuting, said the defendant had "scoured the internet" between January 2009 and his arrest last year for information on the mujahideen. The information downloaded ran into thousands of pages.


Also contained in the documents was a letter written by Kausar that said: "I want to fight jihad for Allah."

The prosecutor said: "In the letter he also asked a series of questions - whether he would be able to fight and whether his martyrdom would be accepted."

When his bedroom was searched, officers found what appeared to be a "shopping list" of munitions, she said.

Prices were marked down next to entries of various weapons and ammunition.

Police also seized Kauser's mobile phone, which contained a photograph of him posing with a rifle. The image was believed to have been taken in Pakistan."

[TripleB]

"collecting a record of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"

Judge Andrew Gilbart QC said: "I accept that all of this material is available on the internet and can be bought from retailers such as Amazon and I accept some of it is out of date.

Incredible.

[Ad Orientem]

Great Britain, in many respects a lovely country, is a nightmare when the subject is civil liberties.  When graded on respect for civil liberties it routinely ranks near the bottom of developed and supposedly democratic nations.

[gizmo_rat]

Great Britain, in many respects a lovely country, is a nightmare when the subject is civil liberties.  When graded on respect for civil liberties it routinely ranks near the bottom of developed and supposedly democratic nations.

Yes it's quite strange, at the individual level it's a very tolerant place, but at the legislative level, eeek.

[MediumTex]

The idea behind conspiracy laws makes sense.

If I know that someone is planning to kill another person, I shouldn't have to wait until they commit the act to involve law enforcement.  In that setting it makes perfect sense.

When you start applying it to crimes that involve many steps to complete, it's much harder to mark the point in time where simply thinking about something becomes a conspiracy.

Normally, a conspiracy requires some type of planning, preferably involving communication or cooperation with another person, but it's often hard to determine when sitting around complaining about things turns into a conspiracy to break the law.

Ultimately, of course, all antisocial thought could be considered a conspiracy to commit some crime.

[Ad Orientem]

It is also worth noting that under the common law and the laws of most states here in the US, a necessary element for the crime of "conspiracy" is more than one person involved in planning a crime.  One cannot "conspire" with one's self.

[TripleB]

It is also worth noting that under the common law and the laws of most states here in the US, a necessary element for the crime of "conspiracy" is more than one person involved in planning a crime.  One cannot "conspire" with one's self.

How do you explain high school students getting arrested for planning to shoot up their school by themselves with in diaries?

[MediumTex]

It is also worth noting that under the common law and the laws of most states here in the US, a necessary element for the crime of "conspiracy" is more than one person involved in planning a crime.  One cannot "conspire" with one's self.

How do you explain high school students getting arrested for planning to shoot up their school by themselves with in diaries?

Normally, conspiracy involves planning with another person or taking some act that suggests criminal intent (e.g., buying materials for a bomb).

Thus, in your case an enthusiastic prosecutor might say that the writing in the diary was the equivalent of buying the components to make a bomb.

[TripleB]

Thus, in your case an enthusiastic prosecutor might say that the writing in the diary was the equivalent of buying the components to make a bomb.

This brings us to the slippery slope of what if the suspect didn't even write it down. What if he just talked to himself in the mirror about planning to do something bad. Then someone overhears and reports it.

That makes us safer right? Because verbally planning it out is the same as doing it on paper, isn't it?

What if the suspect didn't even say it outloud but was just thinking it. If he's planning how to kill people in his head, then we need to stop him, shouldn't we?

I believe the only thing stopping us from making thoughts criminal is the inability for technology to read thoughts. In 50 to 100 years if we can interpret neurological waves into tangible thought, then we will have thought-police.

Today that sounds crazy, but 100 years ago, pissing on the 4th and 5th amendment as blatantly as the US government did in the last 2 months would have sounded crazy too.

[Ad Orientem]

Thus, in your case an enthusiastic prosecutor might say that the writing in the diary was the equivalent of buying the components to make a bomb.

This brings us to the slippery slope of what if the suspect didn't even write it down. What if he just talked to himself in the mirror about planning to do something bad. Then someone overhears and reports it.

That makes us safer right? Because verbally planning it out is the same as doing it on paper, isn't it?

What if the suspect didn't even say it outloud but was just thinking it. If he's planning how to kill people in his head, then we need to stop him, shouldn't we?

I believe the only thing stopping us from making thoughts criminal is the inability for technology to read thoughts. In 50 to 100 years if we can interpret neurological waves into tangible thought, then we will have thought-police.

Today that sounds crazy, but 100 years ago, pissing on the 4th and 5th amendment as blatantly as the US government did in the last 2 months would have sounded crazy too.

Given the need for a second party in a conspiracy charge in many legal jurisdictions, what some prosecutor's do is to name someone who was providing material aid to the accused, often in ignorance, and have them listed as an "un-indited co-conspirator."