3 ms·

>If you have a gun, and we agree that I will shoot someone with it, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that the gun has in fact been permanently dea

>If you have a gun, and we agree that I will shoot someone with it, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that the gun has in fact been permanently deactivated ... that's still conspiracy to commit murder. IIUC, at least in the US, a charge of conspiracy requires an overt act by at least one of the conspirators[0]: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor." As such, in the scenario you present, unless those who discuss murder actually do something in furtherance of that discussed goal, it's not conspiracy. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 N.B.: IANAL

simonh 6y ago
Well in the example they are procuring and preparing to use a gun. That’s doing an act. Incompetently perhaps because unbeknownst to the its not a functioning firearm, but they’re still acting on their intentions.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Well in the example they are procuring and preparing to use a gun. The example mentions a gun, but does not mention that it was procured for the purpose of committing murder. At least in the US, having a gun (there are more guns than people here) by itself isn't very remarkable. If, however, the gun was procured specifically for that purpose, it could be construed as an overt act. Alternatively, if someone retrieved the gun from a storage facility (as was suggested by another commenter) for the purposes of committing murder, that would still be an overt act. ISTR a case where a woman contracted with someone (who turned out to be police acting on a tip from the owner of a website that claimed to put folks in touch with hit men) to kill her husband[0]. Just asking someone to do so wasn't enough. The police had to get the woman to commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (in that case, paying the undercover cop). [0] https://www.wxyz.com/news/monroe-county-woman-arrested-for-trying-to-hire-hitman-to-kill-her-ex-husband https://www.wxyz.com/news/monroe-county-woman-arrested-for-t...

simonh 6y ago

Well in the example they are procuring and preparing to use a gun. That’s doing an act. Incompetently perhaps because unbeknownst to the its not a functioning firearm, but they’re still acting on their intentions.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Well in the example they are procuring and preparing to use a gun. The example mentions a gun, but does not mention that it was procured for the purpose of committing murder. At least in the US, having a gun (there are more guns than people here) by itself isn't very remarkable. If, however, the gun was procured specifically for that purpose, it could be construed as an overt act. Alternatively, if someone retrieved the gun from a storage facility (as was suggested by another commenter) for the purposes of committing murder, that would still be an overt act. ISTR a case where a woman contracted with someone (who turned out to be police acting on a tip from the owner of a website that claimed to put folks in touch with hit men) to kill her husband[0]. Just asking someone to do so wasn't enough. The police had to get the woman to commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (in that case, paying the undercover cop). [0] https://www.wxyz.com/news/monroe-county-woman-arrested-for-trying-to-hire-hitman-to-kill-her-ex-husband https://www.wxyz.com/news/monroe-county-woman-arrested-for-t...