Craven wrote:I did not argue that you said a conspiracy requires one person. I even said that it does myself, but that if you want two culpable people then it can't be at the sole discretion of one of the parties. The other has to act in some way and the way you were arguing was the offer, meaning you had not been arguing that a conspiracy requires only one person (which I think would be a true statement by the way).
If you believe a conspiracy requires only one person, what is your definition of "conspiracy"? Please present some evidence of your belief that a conspiracy only requires one person. You mentioned Wikipedia ... here is what I found there:
Wikipedia wrote:The word conspiracy comes from the Latin "conspirare", ("to breathe together"), and in contemporary usage it is a situation where two or more people agree to perform an illegal or immoral act. Legally, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more parties on a definite plan to achieve an unlawful end or to achieve a lawful end by unlawful means. Secrecy is common but not an "essential element" of the crime. New parties can enter an ongoing conspiracy and are also guilty. A further element of the crime, in most jurisdictions is an 'overt act':
Link
If a conspiracy could involve a single person, whom would that person conspire with? I take it you disagree that a conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons?
Apparently you have not understood my argument thus far. A conspiracy requires an
agreement between two persons. In order to have a legal agreement, you must have: (1) an
offer, and (2) an
acceptance. Thus, where you have two parties to the conspiracy (you can have more than two, but you cannot have less than two), you must have one person make the offer, and the other person make the acceptance. Upon the first person making the offer, you do not yet have an agreement, because the offer has not been accepted. It is only upon the offeree accepting the offer that the agreement has been made, and if it was for an illegal act, you have a conspiracy.
So, when I've said a conspiracy can be at the sole discretion of one of the two parties to the conspiracy, I simply meant that the offeree has the sole discretion whether to accept the offer or not. If he chooses not to accept the offer, there is no conspiracy. If he instead chooses to accept the offer, there is a conspiracy. His decision whether to accept or not to accept is entirely at his discretion. Therefore, whether there is a conspiracy or not in this instance is purely at the discretion of the offeree.
Craven wrote:As far as I know, conspiracy does not always require two persons and in some legal codes, conspiracy can involve only one individual and differs from a conspiratorial agreement between more than one individual in that liability would not exist without an attempt to realize the conspiracy.
I am not aware of any jurisdiction where conspiracy only requires one person. I
am aware there exist jurisdictions that require an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.
Craven wrote:So, for example, a criminal conspiracy exists merely at the point of agreement (which clearly requires more that one person) but if an individual acts on a conspiracy the individual is guilty of the conspiracy in addition to the crime commited.
Correct.
Craven wrote:Tico wrote:You are absolutely incorrect to claim a conspiracy cannot be formed at the sole discretion of one individual.
Nowhere did I claim this, and I have, in fact claimed that conspiracy can involve only one person (but that in those cases only said person is culpable as well).
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but this is what you said that I was responding to:
Craven wrote:But it is not true that a conspiracy between two people can exist at the sole discretion of one individual (which is also not what you are arguing, as you argue that an "offer" was made).
The above statement which you made is absolutely incorrect.
