Pastor gets 2 years for instructing parents to hit their children with wooden rods

[oldernwiser]

20. On the other hand

(Jeez, I love the internet!)

I found this definition:

A conspiracy conviction requires proof that a) the conspirators did indeed conspire to commit the crime, and b) the crime was committed by an individual involved in the conspiracy. Proof of which individual it was is usually not necessary.

Which would say - back-handedly - if it's a crime to beat a child with a wooden dowel or spoon, and if a child had in fact been beaten, and if the beating was inspired by Caminiti, then he would be guilty of conspiracy.

At issue would be whether the true conspirator in this case was Caminiti, or the bible.

It would indeed be conspiracy if I laid out a plan to you to rob a bank, and then you actually did it. But would it necessarily hold that I would be guilty of conspiracy if I read to you a plan from a book and you used that to commit the crime? Maybe...

Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a "general intent" to violate the law.

Truly an interesting case.