Top Law Schools

What's the difference? How do you tell if a person is the former vs the latter

swtlilsoni wrote:What's the difference? How do you tell if a person is the former vs the latter

Good question. You are scaring me, Swtlilsoni

swtlilsoni wrote:What's the difference? How do you tell if a person is the former vs the latter

I guess in accomplice cases you have a principal and an accomplice that assists him, but in conspiracy you have 2 or more persons agreeing to commit a crime, and the latter is an inchoate crime?
Intent to assist the principal and intent that the principal commit the crime - accomplice liability
Intent to agree and intent to commit the crime - conspiracy

Think of accomplice liability as a theory of guilt/way to extend criminal liability and conspiracy as an actual crime itself.

With accomplice liability, you are trying to find someone guilty of the crime who didn't necessarily do the physical act/actus reus required for that crime, but might have had an otherwise guilty mind/sufficient mens rea.

I think the way they want us to understand is like THE_U said.

Accomplice would be like B came to A's gun store and asked A for a gun in order to kill C. A would be an accomplice if he says "oh sure, here you go, I even give you a $50 discount in order to help you killing C". Basically, A is an accomplice because he aided and encouraged B to kill C.

Conspiracy would be like "Hey B, wanna rob that bank? " "oh sure, let's meet à 11PM, is is ok for you? " "yup".

Being an accomplice doesn't require agreement, while conspiracy does.

In order to be charged for conspiracy, you need to either explicitly or implicitly agree to commit the illegal act.