Skip to comments.
Justices Rule Action Isn't Necessary to Prove Conspiracy
NY Times ^
| January 12, 2005
| LINDA GREENHOUSE
Posted on 01/12/2005 12:56:32 AM PST by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-36 last
To: Lazamataz
Never think.
But the government doesn't have to prove that I thought about it. Only that I could have thought about it.
To: neverdem
though crimes take a step closer to the overt from the covert.
To: samtheman
But the government doesn't have to prove that I thought about it. Only that I could have thought about it.If you don't have the opportunity to think criminal thoughts, you have nothing to worry about.
The government is our friend. They are doubleplusgood.
If it saves ONE LIFE, it's worth it.
23
posted on
01/12/2005 7:50:47 AM PST
by
Lazamataz
("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
To: MississippiMan
Exactly. It's good that the court didn't legislate, but the legislature needs to fix it STAT because this nonsense could be a hideous tool in the hands of prosecutors who are chapped over a pesky lack of evidence.Do *not* assume this is an accident.
24
posted on
01/12/2005 7:51:28 AM PST
by
Lazamataz
("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
To: Lazamataz
To: Lazamataz
The more I think about this decision, the less I like it. Twould not have been legislating from the bench to have declared the entire nutty concept unconstitutional. Convicting and jailing people for PLANNING something they never implement is wrong. What if two guys who had never been in trouble decided they were gonna rob a bank. They make their plan, but when they pull up in front of the bank, they come to their senses and decide they'd be better off to go get jobs. We jail them anyway? I realize the law is intended for a different set of circumstances, but anytime you start punishing people before they DO anything, you're on a slippery slope to Thought Crimes.
MM
26
posted on
01/12/2005 8:10:50 AM PST
by
MississippiMan
(Americans should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.)
To: neverdem
To be honest, I disagree with this ruling. Thoughts do no harm and to think about doing something illegal, even to talk about it with others does not create injury.
We should be punishing actions, not thoughts. I can see a very Orwellian future where there are thought police.
27
posted on
01/12/2005 8:19:07 AM PST
by
taxcontrol
(People are entitled to their opinion - no matter how wrong it is.)
To: taxcontrol
Perhaps they were writing a novel.
28
posted on
01/12/2005 8:29:06 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: neverdem
"She added, referring to the church by its initials, that the "investments indeed largely turned out to be 'gifts' to GMIC representatives.""Let's see ... GMIC ... might that be pronounced Gim-ick?
29
posted on
01/12/2005 10:01:55 AM PST
by
NonValueAdded
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" HRC 6/28/2004)
To: MississippiMan
It's good that the court didn't legislate, but the legislature needs to fix it STAT because this nonsense could be a hideous tool in the hands of prosecutors who are chapped over a pesky lack of evidence.
Excellent comment worth bumping to the top.
To: neverdem
Justices Rule Action Isn't Necessary to Prove ConspiracySo - does this mean one of us can successfully take CBS to court for their conspiracy to influence an election?
31
posted on
01/12/2005 1:56:17 PM PST
by
capydick
("History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." --President Dwight Eisenho)
To: Scoop 1; tutstar; Ohioan from Florida
Money laundering. Sounds vaguely familiar.
32
posted on
01/12/2005 3:34:42 PM PST
by
floriduh voter
(Visit www.terrisfight.org SEE TERRI'S VIDEOS AWARE AND ALERT)
To: neverdem
Forgive me if I'm being dense...but this sounds like getting arrested for thinking about doing something. Agree that it sounds like the court ruled soundly, but this needs to be reexamined!
33
posted on
01/12/2005 6:03:33 PM PST
by
pharmamom
("You treat that cat better than you treat me." - the husband)
To: Lazamataz
All your thoughts are belong to us.
34
posted on
01/12/2005 6:05:19 PM PST
by
pharmamom
("You treat that cat better than you treat me." - the husband)
To: pharmamom
This was a ways beyond thinking. Communication was required, and communication is in itself a volitional act.
35
posted on
01/12/2005 6:06:34 PM PST
by
Poohbah
(God must love fools. He makes so many of them...)
To: neverdem
The amendment omitted the requirement, contained in many federal conspiracy laws, that the government prove an "overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy," beyond the act of conspiring. The question was whether, despite this omission, the provision should nonetheless be interpreted to include the requirement of an overt act. Now anyone the Feds can convict anyone they don't like who has BS'd about crime with friends over a beer, or worked colaboratively on a crime or caper novel, or on a crime based computer game if they have included money laundering in the plot.
What Imbecility.
SO9
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-36 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson