How Drug Conspiracy Laws Target Everyone Involved
Contents
How Drug Conspiracy Laws Target Everyone Involved
Drug conspiracy laws are some of the most controversial and complicated laws on the books. They allow prosecutors to charge multiple people in a drug operation, even if some of those people had minor roles or were not directly involved in selling or distributing drugs.
The key to these laws is the concept of “conspiracy.” A conspiracy simply means an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime. So even if you didn’t actually sell any drugs yourself, you can still be charged with conspiracy if prosecutors can show you agreed to help others sell or distribute drugs.
Broad Reach of Conspiracy Laws
Conspiracy laws cast an extremely wide net. They don’t require proof that a defendant actually committed a crime, only that they agreed to help commit a crime. That means prosecutors can go after bit players, minor functionaries, and hangers-on in addition to drug kingpins.
For example, let’s say Bob runs a large drug trafficking operation. Jim is one of Bob’s street-level dealers. Jill lets Bob store drugs in her house. And John helps connect Bob with wholesale drug suppliers. Under conspiracy laws, Bob, Jim, Jill, and John can all be charged even if they played different roles.
The key is that prosecutors just need to show that each defendant agreed to do something to help Bob’s drug business, whether it was selling drugs (Jim), storing drugs (Jill), or introducing suppliers (John). Their different roles don’t matter — it’s the agreement itself that forms the basis of the conspiracy charge.
Proving Agreement
Given the broad nature of conspiracy charges, an obvious defense is for defendants to claim they didn’t actually agree to join a conspiracy. However, prosecutors have a lot of leeway in proving agreement.
Agreement doesn’t have to be explicit. A “tacit understanding” is enough. And agreement can be inferred from the circumstances, like a defendant’s relationship with key members of the conspiracy or their conduct in furthering the conspiracy’s aims.
Prosecutors also don’t have to prove that a defendant knew all the details or members of the conspiracy. It’s enough to show they knew the “essential nature” of the plan and voluntarily joined it.
Harsh Mandatory Minimum Sentences
A major reason conspiracy charges are so concerning is that they often trigger lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. Many drug crimes carry 5, 10, 15 year or even longer mandatory minimums. And conspiracy charges expose defendants to the same punishments as if they actually sold drugs themselves.
So a bit player who let a drug dealer store drugs at her house faces the same potential punishment as the dealer himself. The amounts of drugs sold by the overall conspiracy determine everyone’s mandatory minimums, regardless of their role.
Chilling Effects
Given the broad nature of conspiracy laws and harsh penalties, critics argue they have chilling effects on marginalized communities. Conspiracy laws encourage prosecutors to go after minor players in the name of targeting drug kingpins. And they expose vulnerable populations like girlfriends, relatives, neighbors of drug dealers to lengthy prison sentences.
The upshot is that conspiracy laws undermine justice and fairness. Bit players with minimal roles face severe mandatory minimums intended for masterminds. And conspiracy prosecutions disproportionately target minorities and low-income communities.
Reforming Conspiracy Laws
Some reformers argue conspiracy laws are overly broad and need to be reined in. Suggested reforms include requiring proof a defendant committed an overt act to further the conspiracy, limiting co-conspirator liability for acts they didn’t know about or participate in, exempting minor participants from mandatory minimums, and giving judges more discretion to consider a defendant’s role when imposing sentences.
While conspiracy laws serve legitimate purposes, critics contend they too often impose excessive punishment on marginal actors instead of targeting true drug kingpins. Reforms could help refocus these laws on major players while exempting those with minimal roles.