Criminal Law - Conspiracy

Whartons Rule.
Named after Francis Wharton, the first criminal law scholar to set it forth, no conspiracy exists
where the offense in question requires two people, and only these two people are involved. It is
analogous to a see-saw, which needs two seats in order to qualify as such.
By way of example, in order for an illegal drug transaction to take place, there must be a willing
buyer and seller. The same is true of cases of other unlawful sales, such as that of guns, services of
an intimate nature, or gambling. In Whartons view, conspiracy merges with the crime, and is
therefore absorbed into it. Still, this only applies to a two-person endeavor. If one or more other
person leaps aboard our above-mentioned see-saw, a conspiracy is born.
Whartons theory has not met with wholehearted acceptance in the legal community. It is not utilized
outside the U.S. and has not been included in The Model Penal Code, a compilation of generally
recognized laws and defenses. In addition, where it conflicts with a state statute, the statute
prevails. (Some states have statutes regarding designated crimes, such as gambling or drugtrafficking. Still, the rule is followed in a number of states, and remains part of the legal lexicon.
Types of conspiracies: wheels and chains.
Complex conspiracies, such as drug cartels and money laundering schemes, tend to involve a large
number of persons. As with nearly every aspect of life, the Internet has facilitated conspiracies by
means of global connections. In a wheel conspiracy, individuals interact, for the most part, only with
one leader.
This commander can be perceived as a hub, central to all other spokes in his circle. Indeed, this is
often deliberate. Lack of knowledge regarding identities, locations and activities of fellow members
minimizes the information available if one member is apprehended, or decides to report illegal acts
/goals to a law enforcement agency.
Similarly, a chain conspiracy includes numerous members, but is sequential. Rather than being
centralized in one all-knowing hub, conspirators are linked: A deals with B, who then deals with C,
and so on. Akin to a wheel, the participants in a chain are often not disclosed to one another for the
same security reasons.
Withdrawal from conspiracy.
At what point can a choice to opt out of a plan free one from the clutches of justice? There are times
when a co-conspirator, based on conscience, decides to dissociate himself from his potential
partners in crime.
In both the UK and U.S., withdrawal is a valid defense, if it meets the requirements. This can be
shown by evidence that the person who claims to have withdrawn reported the intended crime to the
police in time to prevent its commission, or made genuine efforts to prevent the carrying out of the
crime in question. Some concrete proof must be provided in order for the defense of withdrawal to
succeed. While reporting to authorities is one indicator, notification to former conspirators, in a
timely manner, may be another. Timing is pivotal.

In a number of jurisdictions, reportage of the conspiracy must be shown to have prevented the
intended crime from reaching fruition. In addition, disclosure made due to fear of being found out by
the authorities negates the defense of withdrawal. To a large degree, this returns us to the mens rea
element, in that the mental state impelling withdrawal is a primary factor.
Ultimately, one must withdraw before having made substantial steps towards assisting his cohorts.
If, having provided the security code for entry into an office building after midnight, the provider
alerts the police ten minutes before the intended crime is about to occur, he can hardly succeed in
claiming to have withdrawn. True, this scenario is extreme and improbable. Still, it illustrates the
ways in which honest withdrawal is culled from a pretense based solely on self-interest.
Conclusion.
Conspiracy, as we have seen, is a complex and controversial aspect of law. Its major pitfall lies Rider
Law roanoke va in its reliance upon mens rea, a state of mind which at best can only be judged by
supposition. Still, in order to limit, to its utmost ability, the agreement between two or more persons
to commit a criminal act detrimental to societal order, the crime of conspiracy is likely to be retained
within the judicial arsenal.
http://hubpages.com/education/Criminal-Law-Conspiracy