The China leak that said Windows 9 and Threshold are not the same
-
Quote:
Technically there are a few situations that don't require the act to happen, such as in attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder,
Actually the criminal act in these cases are the attempt to commit murder and the conspiracy to commit murder respectively so the "act" (which is not the murder itself) still has to happen. What you are mixing up is what is the actual "act" under prosecution.
Quote:
which I am not accusing you of
Glad to hear it! :-D
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Conspiracy to commit a theft is not a crime, it's a preparation of the crime before the act of importance, in English it is an action someone can do, but it is not an act that can make someone guilty without the acts leading to murder. Attempted murder is a bad I see now, because an attempted robbery is still a robbery, the second crime that fits in the category is terrorism sorry.
-
Conspiracy to commit a theft is not a crime, it's a preparation of the crime before the act of importance, in English it is an action someone can do, but it is not an act that can make someone guilty without the acts leading to murder. Attempted murder is a bad I see now, because an attempted robbery is still a robbery, the second crime that fits in the category is terrorism sorry.
Quote:
Conspiracy to commit a theft is not a crime
In the UK (and many other countries) it is: There must be an agreement between two or more persons. The mens rea of conspiracy is a separate issue from the mens rea required of the substantive crime. Lord Bridge in R v Anderson - quoted in R v Hussain said: "an essential ingredient in the crime of conspiring to commit a specific offence or offences under section 1(1) of the Act of 1977 is that the accused should agree that a course of conduct be pursued which he knows must involve the commission by one or more of the parties to the agreement of that offence or those offences". Lord Bridge in R v Anderson also said: "But, beyond the mere fact of agreement, the necessary mens rea of the crime is, in my opinion, established if, and only if, it is shown that the accused, when he entered into the agreement, intended to play some part in the agreed course of conduct in furtherance of the criminal purpose which the agreed course of action was intended to achieve. Nothing less will suffice; nothing more is required." It is not therefore necessary for any action to be taken in furtherance of the criminal purpose in order for a conspiracy offence to have been committed. This distinguishes a conspiracy from an attempt (which necessarily does involve a person doing an act) see Criminal Attempts Act 1981. I am not sure about the US as my Law degree is from the UK and Mercans are, legally, a bit weird sometimes.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
-
Quote:
Conspiracy to commit a theft is not a crime
In the UK (and many other countries) it is: There must be an agreement between two or more persons. The mens rea of conspiracy is a separate issue from the mens rea required of the substantive crime. Lord Bridge in R v Anderson - quoted in R v Hussain said: "an essential ingredient in the crime of conspiring to commit a specific offence or offences under section 1(1) of the Act of 1977 is that the accused should agree that a course of conduct be pursued which he knows must involve the commission by one or more of the parties to the agreement of that offence or those offences". Lord Bridge in R v Anderson also said: "But, beyond the mere fact of agreement, the necessary mens rea of the crime is, in my opinion, established if, and only if, it is shown that the accused, when he entered into the agreement, intended to play some part in the agreed course of conduct in furtherance of the criminal purpose which the agreed course of action was intended to achieve. Nothing less will suffice; nothing more is required." It is not therefore necessary for any action to be taken in furtherance of the criminal purpose in order for a conspiracy offence to have been committed. This distinguishes a conspiracy from an attempt (which necessarily does involve a person doing an act) see Criminal Attempts Act 1981. I am not sure about the US as my Law degree is from the UK and Mercans are, legally, a bit weird sometimes.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
I took criminal psychology so I briefly skimmed over all the laws. "The mens rea of conspiracy is a separate issue from the mens rea required of the substantive crime." which in a way was what I was trying to say. FYI I am not American
-
I took criminal psychology so I briefly skimmed over all the laws. "The mens rea of conspiracy is a separate issue from the mens rea required of the substantive crime." which in a way was what I was trying to say. FYI I am not American
-
Quote:
FYI I am not American
FYI, Nor am I.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
I'm Canadian, that grew up in parts of the country where the native tongue is Acadian - which is almost English mixed with French. In order for me to get through university I had to have someone edit all my papers. Other then that my understanding of every topic allows me to take exams without studying.