The English approach acknowledges these concerns. According to the English Criminal Law Act, 1977, ch. 45, §1(2), it is stated that where liability for any offense may be incurred without knowledge on the part of the person committing it of any particular fact or circumstance necessary for the commission of the offense, a person shall not be guilty of conspiracy to commit that offense unless he and at least one other party to the agreement intend or know that the fact or circumstance shall or will exist at the time when the conduct constituting the offense is to take place (Kadish et al., 2016, p. 766).
I still agree with the notion that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to have an innocent man in jail, even in cases involving conspiracy. For instance, if a group of criminals sets up multiple people to take the blame for their actions, which they refer to as "fall guys," and the innocent individuals get arrested without knowing they were involved in criminal activities, it would be unjust to punish them. In 2019, there was an incident where several people were arrested by the FBI in a romance scam. These individuals were deceived through fake dating profiles, and they unknowingly transferred money to someone's bank account. In such cases, those who were deceived and manipulated should not be held responsible. The true criminals are the ones who knowingly committed the crime by exploiting and tricking others.
The purpose of punishing individuals with conspiracy charges is to deter the organization of crimes. For conspiracy charges, there must be at least two guilty parties who agree to commit the crime, and an act in furtherance of the conspiracy must also occur. This approach is necessary to address the dangers posed by organized crime and to serve as a deterrent.
Duplicative convictions violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The traditional rule in Massachusetts, as embodied in Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 434 (1871) (Morey), and its progeny, states that "a defendant may properly be punished for two crimes arising out of the same course of conduct provided that each crime requires proof of an element that the other does not." Commonwealth v. Vick, 454 Mass. 418, 431 (2009), quoting from Commonwealth v. Valliere. (Source: ROSE, Commonwealth vs., 84 Mass. App. CT. 910).]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Constitutionproject, n.d.)
Even if someone were to receive a duplicate conviction, it would violate the principles of the Fifth Amendment, and such a situation could be challenged. Charging someone twice for the same crime, when it only occurred once, would not be fair. However, a person can face separate charges if they committed the same offense on different occasions.
The best articles, links, and news delivered once a week to your inbox.