Should statutes defining conspiracy require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspirators' agreement?

Yes, requiring proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspirators' agreement strengthens the legal foundation of conspiracy charges by ensuring that there is tangible evidence of intent and action beyond mere agreement. This requirement helps differentiate between mere thoughts or plans and actionable criminal conduct, thereby protecting individuals from undue prosecution based solely on conspiratorial discussions. Additionally, it upholds the principle of criminal liability, ensuring that individuals are only held accountable for concrete steps taken towards committing a crime.