[quote:3a9ae94fda="Electric_Man"][quote:3a9ae94fda="drunkymonkey"]but it's better to get someone before they commit a crime rather than after, surely?[/quote:3a9ae94fda]

I can't remember which book it's in, but this was discussed in Discworld. You can arrest someone before they do a crime on a suspicion, but that would hardly hold up in court,

"We caught him before he did it."
"Did what?"
"Well, he hasn't done it yet..."[/quote:3a9ae94fda]How about arresting someone when they decide to meet up with a child without parent's consent?

OK, how do you prove that the person on the other end who's planned to meet them is, in fact, an adult, unless they arrange a meeting and they turn up? At that stage, the intent has turned into them commiting a crime.

You can't convict on a suspicion, you can use your suspicion to be ready to catch someone in the early stages of a crime and prevent them going further, but you can't convict on a suspicion.

I could joke and say, "I'd really like to steal all of the Queen's money." Somebody quite literal may take that seriously and suspect me of plotting to steal her money, they couldn't convict me of that though.

[quote="drunkymonkey[quote:5e46a6214e]
I don't see why not really. It's going to stop him committing the real crime. I of course don't want some kind of Minority Report dystopia, but it's better to get someone before they commit a crime rather than after, surely?[/quote:5e46a6214e]

First of all, you were talking about suing, which has to do with civil laws - not crime, but damages. That is, whatever you did to me caused me to lose money, or the potential to earn money, so I want you to pay me for it.

If you're talking about criminal law, then how can you prove that someone intended to commit a crime? Are you going to arrest everyone who ever gets angry with someone else and thinks about beating the crap out of the them, even if they never do it? What if they say it out loud?

How do you prove *beyond a reasonable doubt* someone's intentions? There's almost always going to be some doubt about what another person is thinking.

What if someone prepares to commit a crime, and then at the last minute changes their mind and decides not to do it? How do they prove that? And then, what's the point of punishment as a deterrent if they're going to get punished anyway?

If someone is threatening someone else, has illegal weapons, or tries to hurt someone but is unsuccessful, then those are crimes themselves. The court can arrange for someone's safety, for example, by placing an order of protection. You can refuse to sell weapons to people. You can be arresed view child porn.

But you can only be arrested for what you do, not what you are thinking of possibly doing.

Marcia, I'm afraid that you've quite forgotten about conspiracy to commit a crime being a crime in itself. It may not apply to a lone person, but it certainly applies to two and more. Planning a bank heist, for example, *is* a crime in itself, if it's more than one person that does the planning. If said plan, said *conspiracy* can be proven, then it's a crime in itself, seperate from the actual robbery.

Of course, it's only applicable if said robbery was stopped before it even happened. After it does, it's a robbery, and not a conspiracy to commit one.

[quote:d7b9a0aca9="Electric_Man"]OK, how do you prove that the person on the other end who's planned to meet them is, in fact, an adult, unless they arrange a meeting and they turn up? At that stage, the intent has turned into them commiting a crime.

You can't convict on a suspicion, you can use your suspicion to be ready to catch someone in the early stages of a crime and prevent them going further, but you can't convict on a suspicion.

I could joke and say, "I'd really like to steal all of the Queen's money." Somebody quite literal may take that seriously and suspect me of plotting to steal her money, they couldn't convict me of that though.[/quote:d7b9a0aca9]

Well, I suppose a meeting would be the best way to find out, but there's always the case of IP addresses that link back to someone's house, and then the police can see who lives there.

As Roman says, conspiracy to commit a crime is also an offence.

Yeah, I agree that everything then could be taken literally, but I suppose it could be judged on how serious their claim is. Like suppose, you have elaborte plans to steal the Queen's money, or you're actually holding secret missions to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui

There's an example of someone being tried for conspiracy to commit a crime without having taken part in the final act. There's a death penalty at stake in this case. Please note that I'm not defending the man at all, it's just the first example that sprang to mind.

[quote:69d8a5ab45="Katcal"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui

There's an example of someone being tried for conspiracy to commit a crime without having taken part in the final act. There's a death penalty at stake in this case. Please note that I'm not defending the man at all, it's just the first example that sprang to mind.[/quote:69d8a5ab45]

That's not exactly the same as what I was describing. In this case it seems that the charge is more one of aiding/abetting the crime that did happen (i.e. september 11th)

[quote:69d8a5ab45]In seeking a death sentence, prosecutors must prove that he “intentionally participated in an act…and the victim died as a direct result of the act.” (This was proven when he admitted he knew about the attacks and did nothing to stop them.)[/quote:69d8a5ab45]

In my hypothetical situation, no crime had been commited. In this case, a crime has been commited and he is being charged with relation to the planning (or conspiracy) of that.

[quote:69d8a5ab45="Roman_K"]Marcia, I'm afraid that you've quite forgotten about conspiracy to commit a crime being a crime in itself. It may not apply to a lone person, but it certainly applies to two and more. Planning a bank heist, for example, *is* a crime in itself, if it's more than one person that does the planning. If said plan, said *conspiracy* can be proven, then it's a crime in itself, seperate from the actual robbery.

Of course, it's only applicable if said robbery was stopped before it even happened. After it does, it's a robbery, and not a conspiracy to commit one.[/quote:69d8a5ab45]

The pertinent part of your quote, Roman is: [i:69d8a5ab45]If said plan, said *conspiracy* can be proven...[/i:69d8a5ab45] But what would constitute proof? A napkin with a drawing of the bank's layout wouldn't be.

[quote:69d8a5ab45="drunkmonkey"]Yeah, I agree that everything then could be taken literally, but I suppose it could be judged on how serious their claim is. Like suppose, you have elaborte plans to steal the Queen's money, or you're actually holding secret missions to do so.[/quote:69d8a5ab45]

Possibly, if you caught someone with an full schematic of the bank, all the tools they would need to actually penetrate the bank, proof of meetings with other people about this, proof that someone has invested a lot of money in this operation, proof that they had been monitoring the bank to gather information. If a detective had all that, then they may be able to get a conviction. Maybe, if they're lucky. But they couldn't be certain.

The only way the detective could be sure it was a crime and be able to prove it, is if he waited (with a squad of men) for the conspirators to start commiting the crime, then arrest them as soon as they have done so. It would be the only way to get cast-iron proof that could stand up in court.

The proof is in the pudding. Especially if they planned to use explosive tiramisu to open the vault.

[quote:4ae96ceee9="Electric_Man"][quote:4ae96ceee9="Katcal"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui

There's an example of someone being tried for conspiracy to commit a crime without having taken part in the final act. There's a death penalty at stake in this case. Please note that I'm not defending the man at all, it's just the first example that sprang to mind.[/quote:4ae96ceee9]

That's not exactly the same as what I was describing. In this case it seems that the charge is more one of aiding/abetting the crime that did happen (i.e. september 11th)[/quote:4ae96ceee9]

The 6 charges against him are all of conspiracy, but yes, I see that as the crime was still committed but not by him it's not a perfect example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy

Maybe this Wikipedia entry will help shed further light on the matter.

edit: Blast. Attempts to fix the link weren't successful. I changed it to Conspiracy, so just go to Conspiracy(Crime) from there.

[quote:c55bd3d740="Electric_Man"][quote:c55bd3d740="Katcal"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui

There's an example of someone being tried for conspiracy to commit a crime without having taken part in the final act. There's a death penalty at stake in this case. Please note that I'm not defending the man at all, it's just the first example that sprang to mind.[/quote:c55bd3d740]

That's not exactly the same as what I was describing. In this case it seems that the charge is more one of aiding/abetting the crime that did happen (i.e. september 11th)

[quote:c55bd3d740]In seeking a death sentence, prosecutors must prove that he “intentionally participated in an act…and the victim died as a direct result of the act.” (This was proven when he admitted he knew about the attacks and did nothing to stop them.)[/quote:c55bd3d740]

In my hypothetical situation, no crime had been commited. In this case, a crime has been commited and he is being charged with relation to the planning (or conspiracy) of that.

[quote:c55bd3d740="Roman_K"]Marcia, I'm afraid that you've quite forgotten about conspiracy to commit a crime being a crime in itself. It may not apply to a lone person, but it certainly applies to two and more. Planning a bank heist, for example, *is* a crime in itself, if it's more than one person that does the planning. If said plan, said *conspiracy* can be proven, then it's a crime in itself, seperate from the actual robbery.

Of course, it's only applicable if said robbery was stopped before it even happened. After it does, it's a robbery, and not a conspiracy to commit one.[/quote:c55bd3d740]

The pertinent part of your quote, Roman is: [i:c55bd3d740]If said plan, said *conspiracy* can be proven...[/i:c55bd3d740] But what would constitute proof? A napkin with a drawing of the bank's layout wouldn't be.

[quote:c55bd3d740="drunkmonkey"]Yeah, I agree that everything then could be taken literally, but I suppose it could be judged on how serious their claim is. Like suppose, you have elaborte plans to steal the Queen's money, or you're actually holding secret missions to do so.[/quote:c55bd3d740]

Possibly, if you caught someone with an full schematic of the bank, all the tools they would need to actually penetrate the bank, proof of meetings with other people about this, proof that someone has invested a lot of money in this operation, proof that they had been monitoring the bank to gather information. If a detective had all that, then they may be able to get a conviction. Maybe, if they're lucky. But they couldn't be certain.

The only way the detective could be sure it was a crime and be able to prove it, is if he waited (with a squad of men) for the conspirators to start commiting the crime, then arrest them as soon as they have done so. It would be the only way to get cast-iron proof that could stand up in court.

The proof is in the pudding. Especially if they planned to use explosive tiramisu to open the vault.[/quote:c55bd3d740]

I think that there is still a crime under British law "Going equipped for a crime" - but which would be subject to interpretation - for instance, a professional locksmith might carry a set of lock-picks on the way to a job where he had to get someone into their house when they had locked themselves out and left their keys inside - perfectly legitimate - but someone [i:c55bd3d740]without[/i:c55bd3d740] that professional background, found with a set of lock-picks - especially at night - would almost certainly find themselves in court and convicted in very short order. There was a case many years ago when a someone - admittedly with a long criminal record - was convicted under this law because he had a sock in his pocket - judged to be usable to protect his hand when breaking a window to enter a house for the purpose of robbery.

Oh No!
I'm always going equipped to carry out criminal acts!
I am equipped for exposure and many types of indecent acts...

Must get a new coat... :(

I always carry a swiss army knife and silver duck-tape in my bag, I never travel without them (except when I have to get on a plane), so I'm a potention kidnapper/murderer/serial killer/rapist/Macgyver, although that last one isn't a recognized crime in all countries.

bloody well should be...

[quote:8cf65140dc="Pixel"]a professional locksmith might carry a set of lock-picks on the way to a job where he had to get someone into their house when they had locked themselves out and left their keys inside - perfectly legitimate - but someone without that professional background, found with a set of lock-picks - especially at night - would almost certainly find themselves in court and convicted in very short order. [/quote:8cf65140dc]

This actually works both ways.

The father of one of my highschool friends owned a bikeshop.
After 2 robberies (Money, not the bikes :-) ) he used to have a bat behind the counter.

A friendly policeofficer explained that, if he would beat someone up with it, even if they were robbing him, he could be guilty of a crime, because the bat could only be in the shop for that....

He advised him to switch the bat with a "Spoke spanner", because that way it could just be "at hand", especially in a bikeshop.

A spokespanner is a wooden thing, the size of a small bat, with some iron thingies at the end...

[quote:2a17b55f82="Pixel"]I think that there is still a crime under British law "Going equipped for a crime" - but which would be subject to interpretation - for instance, a professional locksmith might carry a set of lock-picks on the way to a job where he had to get someone into their house when they had locked themselves out and left their keys inside - perfectly legitimate - but someone [i:2a17b55f82]without[/i:2a17b55f82] that professional background, found with a set of lock-picks - especially at night - would almost certainly find themselves in court and convicted in very short order. There was a case many years ago when a someone - admittedly with a long criminal record - was convicted under this law because he had a sock in his pocket - judged to be usable to protect his hand when breaking a window to enter a house for the purpose of robbery.[/quote:2a17b55f82]

Having the tools would be physical proof that you were planning to commit a crime. It has to do with the level of evidence, as in talking about robbing a blank versus having detailed plans and safe-blowing supplies.

Regarding arrest: Police can arrest on probable cause that a crime has been committed. So they don't need hard evidence, but an actual crime has to be committed.

Conspiracy law requires evidence that more than one person agreed to commit the crime together, and in many jursidictions requires the commission of an overt act by at least one of the people (for example, if one of the people is found to possess a weapon.) It's also considered to be unjust by many people, so there would be political consequences (could be positive or negative) for anyone involved with having someone convicted on conspiracy charges.

edit: Two or more people planning a crime is different than one person planning a crime because once you start discussing the crime with other people and making plans with them, you're a step closer to carrying it out and it's harder to stop the process.