Talk:Criminal conspiracy

Some issues with the article to fix
First, the article only briefly mentions in passing how most European countries (outside the U.K.) do not traditionally recognize the crime of "criminal conspiracy", and even now only do so AFAIK in some limited situations relating to international law not under their respective domestic laws. We should make this fact more prominent in the article and if possible (as in reliable sources can be found on the subject) discuss why they have largely rejected having a laws relating to "crime conspiracy". Second, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that for a criminal conspiracy to have taken places Both U.K. and U.S. law that their needs to the actual intent at some point to commit a crime by the all those involved and that so long as the intent was there at some point then even if no further steps ever take place to follow through it's still a crime. This means that it would not be a "crime of conspiracy" if a group of people sat around discussing hypothetically how they might commit a crime together such as say robing a bank but with the clear understanding during the whole discussion that they would never actually go through with the crime in real life. Now of course I'm not sure how conspiracy law would apply where one person mistakenly thought the another person was serious about committing a crime together, while the other simply took it as a hypothetical or joke with no intent of committing said crime, such as in the plot to Alfred Hitchcock's film "Strangers on a Train" (I'm assuming here that because not all parties did not actually "an agreement" even if one mistakenly thought so that only the one who followed through would be guilty under U.K. and U.S. law (if that's not the case then let's clarify that in the article.). Basically, we could be more clear in the article that "an agreement" in this context does not include simply a "hypothetical plan" since no Mens rea is present given that there was never any actually "agreement that a course of conduct be pursued" merely hypothesizing as to what said "course of action" might look like if they ever were serious about committing such a crime. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Ekibastuz Kokshetsu 1150 kv transmission line
Please talk this topic 79.121.73.241 (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction in the intro
The lead seems to include a direct contradiction. It first says a conspiracy “may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense”. It then almost immediately says that no steps need be taken in furtherance of the plan to constitute one. These both cannot be true. It goes on to mention acteus reus, but not in a way that resolves the conflict. In American law, some act would need to be committed, as opposed to just guys talking about doing something. Sychonic (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're creating an unnecessary problem by leaving out the words "in most countries". They are there for a reason. In many countries, mens rea (the guilty mind) is a crime, even before any act to carry out the plan. Planning to break the law is always wrong everywhere, and in those countries the mere planning is punishable.
 * In religious history it goes to what Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount, specifically (Matthew 5:21 & 22: Jesus says that anger leads to murder, and anger is just as bad as murder itself. It is what's in the heart that really counts. Note the current situation, where angry, young, white men commit so many mass shootings. Anger and guns are a bad combination, and they are getting riled up and made angry by conservative conspiracy theorists and politicians who legislate to make sure they can be armed with the most lethal weapons. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to criminal conspiracy and civil conspiracy. per discussion consensus, WP:NATDIS, and consensus-via-compromise. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

– "Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation"; the proposed titles are more precise, easily understood, as well as less awkward than the current title. I would also support civil conspiracy and criminal conspiracy. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * conspiracy (criminal) → conspiracy in criminal law
 * conspiracy (civil) → conspiracy in civil law
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. makes sense. Ebbedlila (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Criminal conspiracy and Civil conspiracy per WP:NATDIS. The terms are often used and already redirect to these articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)