Criminal Conspiracy: Nevada Law vs. Common Definitions Understanding the definition of conspiracy is a complex task that is influenced by the differences of opinion, knowledge and social environments. Individual definitions of conspiracy are shaped by many societal factors such as religion, education and previous experiences within the criminal justice system. Specific genres of conspiracy can be a major factor in the public definition of conspiracy. Many legal sources, including the Model Penal Code (MPC), offer a definition of conspiracy and a way to understand conspiracy and the punishment provided for such crimes. It is also important to understand the differences between common law and state statutes and how they correlate with today’s …show more content…
The first part of the actus reus is the agreement. The agreement of a conspiracy is the part in which the individuals come together and agree to a plan that will end in an illegal act. There is no need for a written and signed agreement in order to fulfill this requirement. The illegal act of the conspiracy is the target offense. The second part of the actus reus is the overt act. The overt act is required by federal courts but not all states require it. The overt act is the act that shows the intention to commit the crime. In other words, the parties must have taken a step towards completing their goal. The overt act is not required in the state of Nevada as noted by the Nevada Legislation Revised Statutes Title 15 Chapter …show more content…
Criminal conspiracy can be problematic because of the prosecution before an individual has committed a substantive crime. This is a way to stop crime before it happens. Several individuals who work together to agree upon a crime may go on to commit more offenses that may cause greater harm than those who act alone. Conspiracy laws are problematic and test the limits of the First Amendment rights. These limits are tested because the prosecution is allowed to use protected acts, such as speech, against the defendants. Criminal conspiracy prosecutions should require proof that the conspiracy presents a real danger. The overt act should require prosecutors to show substantial evidence in pursuit of the criminals’ joint effort. There is a level of unfairness due to the flexibility of the criminal conspiracy laws, but the aforementioned reforms could