I will add that only recently was the judgment of this Court in the case of the High Court of Justice 3315/04 Sheetrit v. Jerusalem District Court [42], in which it was held that in American law, conspiracy to possess a drug should not be regarded as a "conspiracy offense by default" - in the words of my colleague Justice M. Cheshin - but rather an offense that is deeply rooted in the field of drug offenses:
"... The offense of conspiracy derives, as a rule, its essence from the offense, which is the purpose of the conspiracy, and from the protected value of that offense, all the more so that the matter will be said of the offense of which the petitioner was convicted - an offense under the aforementioned section 846 [of the American law - A.A.L.] - an offense that is clearly a drug offense in its essence.
... The center of gravity of the offense will be found in the drugs in it and not in the connection therein..." (ibid., at pp. 431-432).
Thus, Israeli law, as well as the American one, recognized the need to invest considerable efforts in eradicating the scourge of drugs. At the center of legal practice is the ability to extend the application of the domestic law of each state beyond its territory, along with persistence in international cooperation. Within these frameworks, a central role is reserved for the ability to extradite criminals from one country to another, to the extent that this is required by law and by the circumstances.
Conspiracy Offenses
- Conspiracy offenses were born out of the recognition that it is better, within the framework of the fight against crime, to thwart criminal plots even before they are realized (cf. President Barak In Parashat 'Issa [36], pp. 51-52). This was noted by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the United State v. Wright-Barker, supra [79] -
“The purpose of these provisions is to halt smugglers before they introduce their dangerous wares into and distribute them in this country” (ibid, at p. 168).
But the same preventive purpose, which is used in this idea, is liable to make it more difficult to enforce the criminal prohibition. In many cases, there may be a gap between the formation of the criminal plan and the execution of acts to carry it out. It is possible that the advance planning will remain as an agreement "on paper," and no action will take place to implement it. Alternatively, it is possible that acts to realize the connection will take place at a great distance from the place where it was first formed. Indeed, many times efforts are made to tie the knot, as well as the very fact that it is formulated into a complete and complete criminal plan, in places that are completely different from where its fruits are supposed to grow. The conspirators can initiate their plan without ever setting foot on the target's soil. They may be found enjoying the protection of borders between countries and between different legal systems, while in their plan they sought to undermine the very same borders. The result is that the conspirators are liable to take advantage of the geographical gap in order to immunize themselves from exposure to the trial of a particular country, even though they have chosen this country as a platform for the realization of their criminal plot. It is difficult to fit into a situation in which the conspirators will be, but by virtue of their choice to tie the knot in a certain country and not in an unknown country, they are safe from exposure to the laws of the latter, in which this connection is supposed to take shape.