Justices Rule Action Isn't Necessary to Prove Conspiracy

NY Times ^ | January 12, 2005 | LINDA GREENHOUSE

[samtheman]

Never think.

But the government doesn't have to prove that I thought about it. Only that I could have thought about it.

[longtermmemmory]

though crimes take a step closer to the overt from the covert.

[Lazamataz]

But the government doesn't have to prove that I thought about it. Only that I could have thought about it.

If you don't have the opportunity to think criminal thoughts, you have nothing to worry about.

The government is our friend. They are doubleplusgood.

If it saves ONE LIFE, it's worth it.

[Lazamataz]

Exactly. It's good that the court didn't legislate, but the legislature needs to fix it STAT because this nonsense could be a hideous tool in the hands of prosecutors who are chapped over a pesky lack of evidence.

Do *not* assume this is an accident.

[longtermmemmory]

its for the children.

[MississippiMan]

The more I think about this decision, the less I like it. Twould not have been legislating from the bench to have declared the entire nutty concept unconstitutional. Convicting and jailing people for PLANNING something they never implement is wrong. What if two guys who had never been in trouble decided they were gonna rob a bank. They make their plan, but when they pull up in front of the bank, they come to their senses and decide they'd be better off to go get jobs. We jail them anyway? I realize the law is intended for a different set of circumstances, but anytime you start punishing people before they DO anything, you're on a slippery slope to Thought Crimes.

MM

[taxcontrol]

To be honest, I disagree with this ruling. Thoughts do no harm and to think about doing something illegal, even to talk about it with others does not create injury.

We should be punishing actions, not thoughts. I can see a very Orwellian future where there are thought police.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps they were writing a novel.

[NonValueAdded]

"She added, referring to the church by its initials, that the "investments indeed largely turned out to be 'gifts' to GMIC representatives.""

Let's see ... GMIC ... might that be pronounced Gim-ick?

[george wythe]

It's good that the court didn't legislate, but the legislature needs to fix it STAT because this nonsense could be a hideous tool in the hands of prosecutors who are chapped over a pesky lack of evidence.

Excellent comment worth bumping to the top.

[capydick]

Justices Rule Action Isn't Necessary to Prove Conspiracy

So - does this mean one of us can successfully take CBS to court for their conspiracy to influence an election?

[floriduh voter]

Money laundering. Sounds vaguely familiar.

[pharmamom]

Forgive me if I'm being dense...but this sounds like getting arrested for thinking about doing something. Agree that it sounds like the court ruled soundly, but this needs to be reexamined!

[pharmamom]

All your thoughts are belong to us.

[Poohbah]

This was a ways beyond thinking. Communication was required, and communication is in itself a volitional act.

[Servant of the 9]

The amendment omitted the requirement, contained in many federal conspiracy laws, that the government prove an "overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy," beyond the act of conspiring. The question was whether, despite this omission, the provision should nonetheless be interpreted to include the requirement of an overt act.

Now anyone the Feds can convict anyone they don't like who has BS'd about crime with friends over a beer, or worked colaboratively on a crime or caper novel, or on a crime based computer game if they have included money laundering in the plot.

What Imbecility.

SO9