Humanities desk
< April 11	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 12[edit]

Has it ever been argued that the RICO statute violates the Free Association clause of The First Amendment?[edit]

Hello, Wikipedians I was curious about whether or not the RICO statute has ever challenged on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment`s Free Association Clause? The reason I asked is because I was watching a documentary where the warden of a prison said it`s not a crime in itself to be a member of a gang. If so then isn`t RICO a violation of the Free Association Clause of the First Amendment which says you can be a member of any type of organization you want even a criminal one?

According to the article Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act it is not a crime to associate with the other person, but it is a crime to order or assist that person with a crime. RudolfRed (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What "free association" clause are you referring to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For more information see under First Amendment to the United States Constitution#Freedom of association. --184.147.181.129 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does conspiracy to commit a crime fit into it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that an argument could be made that just because one is associating with criminals, it doesn't necessarily mean one is conspiring with them to commit crimes: one's association might be innocent unless there is proof to the contrary. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.35.136 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of mere foreknowledge being enough to constitute being an accessory in the United States. I think (and I'm not a lawyer) that generally it requires some overt act in furtherance. There's the (rarely charged, I think) offense of misprision, but that's a different thing. --Trovatore (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're slipping in "accessory" there as though it were the same thing, but it isn't. An accessory before the fact is generally considered just as criminally liable as a principal (with some exceptions regarding the death penalty — see Enmund v Florida). But misprision of felony is a distinct offense, and the liability may be much less if the underlying crime is serious. Also I gather that misprision is not a very common charge. The only case I know of is Michael Fortier, who pled guilty to misprision as part of a plea bargain; presumably this was to avoid being tried on charges of actually being part of the conspiracy. (Our article suggests he was convicted as an "accomplice" but I think that is incorrect.) --Trovatore (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've modified my initial answers to remove inaccuracies from them. You clearly know more about this than I do, and it was wrong of me to mislead the OP and other readers in my responses. That, and the inability to stop myself from doing so even though I know it is wrong, are my major character flaws. Mea culpa. Carry on. --Jayron 32 17:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the premise is flawed. I'm free to associate with Al Capone - that's not a crime (especially not any more, since he's dead). But if he tells me about crimes he's done or crimes he's planning, I may be liable for prosecution - see Accessory for details on "before the fact" and "after the fact" accessories. If he and I both commit crimes in a related fashion, that's where it starts to be defined as racketeering and I am no longer "only" an accessory. But if he and I just discuss baseball history, it's no problem. Matt Deres (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in your link that suggests you can be an accessory just because he tells you his plans and you do nothing. --Trovatore (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RICO's purpose is to remove the legal ambiguity of Alan tells Bob that Charlie is a problem. Bob then tells Dom to take care of Charlie. Charlie is killed. Prior to RICO, it was difficult to charge Alan and potentially Bob with any crime but under RICO, a series of conversations like this create a pattern that is chargeable. Nowhere in the situation did the mere association of Alan, Bob and Don become illegal even if they were all members of "Nice Guys Clubhouse" Slywriter (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it's known as the Defence of Turbulent priests Act. Temerarius (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]