- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
Every time you visit this thread, you must post before you leave.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A+If you can charge someone for planning to commit a crime then it means that they are unable to look over their plan and realize that they should just not commit the crime
The government can stop someone from performing a dangerous terrorist attack though because this only applies to crimes and not military action
If you can charge someone for planning to commit a crime then it means that they are unable to look over their plan and realize that they should just not commit the crime
Would it be chargeable when the participants are still able to realistically decide not to go through with itExcept that's wrong. The law of conspiracy contains the concept of a locus poenitentiae, a time and place before which the mere plan to commit a crime with others constitutes a prosecutable conspiracy or attempt. This time and place is before any overt act is committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. After that, the crime is in motion.
Would it be chargeable when the participants are still able to realistically decide not to go through with it
I don't mind BBC tbh famHey, I got to the end of this thread, and the posts just above me didn't really give me a lot to react to. So to keep this grisly fate from befalling another, I'll provide a writing prompt.
Prompt: How do you feel about BIG, BLACK DICK?
Good luck, next poster!
And if someone engages in concrete acts to withdraw are they no longer chargeableThat's before the overt act. Without that, the incentive never to engage in a conspiracy is seriously weakened. To pull out of a conspiracy at that point requires concrete acts that demonstrate withdrawal from the conspiracy.