Conspiracy Question Forum
- Mce252
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:43 pm
Conspiracy Question
Conspiracy to solicit - this is an offense, right? When B agrees with A to help find someone to commit the target offense. If so, where does the liability via Pinkerton end? When the soliciation is complete? Or when the target offense solicited is complete?
-
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:59 pm
Re: Conspiracy Question
No such thing as conspiracy to solicit. Asking someone to help you execute a crime is solicitation. As soon as the other person agrees to help, it's conspiracy. So in your example, once B has agreed to help A, B is liable for conspiracy, and thus liable under Pinkerton for the crimes committed in furtherance/reasonably foreseeable consequence/[forgot the other prong] of the conspiracy, which certainly includes the crime that A solicited help to commit.
- Mce252
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:43 pm
Re: Conspiracy Question
Asking someone to help you with a crime isn't a solicitation under the common law. It has to be a "do it for me, not with me" type of relationship under the common law. It brings accomplice liability through the aid rendered but not for solicitation. The model penal code is different.
I don't see why conspiracy to solicit wouldn't be a crime. It's unlawful activity agreed upon between two or more people. Thus, the goal of their agreement is to solicit a party to commit a crime.
I can see what you mean that Pinkerton is going to obviously hold both parties liabile for any further crimes becasue they are foreseeable and within the scope of a planned solicitation, but my point is that if they were arrested at that moment before the solicited party either turned them down or couldn't be found, a conspiracy to solicit seems to be applicable. At least I still don't see why not.
I don't see why conspiracy to solicit wouldn't be a crime. It's unlawful activity agreed upon between two or more people. Thus, the goal of their agreement is to solicit a party to commit a crime.
I can see what you mean that Pinkerton is going to obviously hold both parties liabile for any further crimes becasue they are foreseeable and within the scope of a planned solicitation, but my point is that if they were arrested at that moment before the solicited party either turned them down or couldn't be found, a conspiracy to solicit seems to be applicable. At least I still don't see why not.
-
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:59 pm
Re: Conspiracy Question
Sorry I misread your question, I thought it was just A asking B, not that A agrees with B to ask C.
Conspiracy also requires an overt act toward the end served. So both A and B would have to do something to effectuate the asking of C to commit a crime in order for both A and B to be guilty of conspiracy to solicit C. I don't see any theoretical reason why this couldn't happen.
This sounds like a question for your prof.
Conspiracy also requires an overt act toward the end served. So both A and B would have to do something to effectuate the asking of C to commit a crime in order for both A and B to be guilty of conspiracy to solicit C. I don't see any theoretical reason why this couldn't happen.
This sounds like a question for your prof.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login