Poll: Who's more responsible for a contract killing, the assassin or the client?

[pppppppppppppppppp]

As the title says, who's more responsible for a murder (and who should get a greater punishment), an assassin who kills someone or the person who hired him?

Say a businessman hires someone to kill his innocent boss so he'll be promoted. He gives a (sexy, spandex wearing) woman some money to do it, and she's successful, but she's later caught and rats the businessman out. Who gets the greater punishment, the killer or the businessman?

On one hand, the assassin is the one doing the actual killing and the operation wouldn't succeed without him, but on the other hand, the client is the one who started the operation and specifically intended for him to die.

NOTE: If you're curious about the current law: After a rigorous 30 seconds of researching on Wikipedia, it says that both the killer and the client can be charged for murder, but I couldn't find anything about which person, if any, gets a greater punishment.

Oh, and speaking of sexy women in spandex:

EDIT: Since most people are saying the client or both, I'll play devil's advocate and say the assassin. The client merely desires for someone to die, but the assassin makes that desire a reality. The client only provides the assassin an incentive to kill, and if he takes that incentive, they're the real murderers. This could really be applied to any task. If I pay a carpenter to build my house, he's the one building it, I'm just giving him a financial incentive to do so. If I pay my doctor to fix my leg, it'd be pretty balsy to say me and the doctor just fixed my leg together.

Also, is everyone on this forum prepared to quote Mass Effect 2 verbatim?

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

I'd say the client. Simply put, the client enables and encourages the assassin. Both get fucked by the law but the client should get fucked a little harder since if the assassin chickens out, the client will just get another one to do it.

 

[Best of the 3]

In my view, the client has to be responsible. Using an assassin would be like using a tool to kill. But you wouldn't say that a gun was more resposible for a killing than the person shooting it.

And the assassin is responsible too. They have to physically carr out the task and it is their final choice that can chose to end / save a life. They too are responsible.

Equally responsible in my opinion.

 

[the spud]

The Client ordered the man killed for personal gain.

The assassin killed the man for money (I.E. personal gain).

They are both equally guilty of the same crime.

 

[Jedoro]

Both are equally responsible, and here in Tennessee taking part in a contract killing is an aggravating factor for the death penalty. So, either or both the client and assassin are up for life in prison or death for an assassination.

 

[Twilight_guy]

If we asked Thane I'd sure he'd say that his body was just a tool that was used by the man who order the assassination and thus he is innocent. Unfortunately, we're not Drell.

Both are guilty. One kills for money, the other has men killed. Both are guilty of the violence of the assassination.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

AAHAAAHHHHh Not this debate again! (Actually this is quite an original thread it just always stumps me this debate) I'm always reminded on Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler being responsible even thought they never killed anyone but they were the ones who told people to do it, so this is very relevant.....and that means the client is responsible but the assassin killed him, which makes him responsible...but *head explodes*

 

[Stealthygamer]

Black Widow......

OT: both are responsible, the client more so

 

[poppabaggins]

I voted for the client, but really mmmmmmmm, Scarlett Johansson

 

[Walter44]

The assassin. He or she is the one actually doing it. Yeah, he wouldn't do it if it weren't for the client, but still: HE'S THE ONE KILLING A PERSON! It's his responsibility to carry out the job. He could always say no, or...well...just not offer his services!

Different question: Who made the pizza? You, calling Antonio's or Antonio himself, standing in the kitchen DOING THE JOB?

 

[The Heik]

*snip*

Both. The client may be the one who wants the target dead, but the assassin doesn't have to be an assassin; he's chosen to kill people for a living, so he is as much to blame and schould face the same punishment

Aside: BTW

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn.........

 

[Nyce1]

I blame Scarlett Johanssons hawtness!

 

[dyre]

I'd say the client is slightly more responsible. If the client didn't exist, then the victim would still be alive (assassin's don't just go around killing random people). If the assassin didn't exist, then the client would just hire another assassin and the victim would be dead anyway.

So, it's the client's existence that contributes the most to the victim's death.

 

[xdom125x]

They are equally responsible.

The assassin carried out the murder but wouldn't have committed that murder if not for the payment from the client.

I want to say the client should get a harsher punishment because them hiring an assassin is proof of it being both premeditated and of their own free will but the assassin agreed to this, knew what they were getting into, and when all is said and done, were the ones to carry out the murder. So, I think the client getting the same punishment as the assassin is fair.

My memory on the laws on this is a little rusty but aren't both people in this guilty of 1st degree murder so they both get life in prison or the death penalty?

(1 quick scan of wikipedia later)

A quick scan of wikipedia, more specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States seems to agree with me, but that isn't exactly the most reliable source.


Edit:
During a quick scan above this post, I noticed Skullkid4187's post which reminded me why I think they are equally responsible: because I think "I was just following orders" is a crappy excuse that doesn't absolve you of the consequences of your own damn actions. Especially in a scenario like the O.P. suggested.

 

[Kryzantine]

The client is the more responsible for the act, but the killer should be punished more. After all, the client was the one who set the assassin on the victim, but the assassin poses more of a threat to the safety of society, since he is the one who is ultimately able to kill anyone.

Both should do hard time, of course.

EDIT - Obviously, this goes according to both of them being on trial for the same crime. In the case of plea dealing, contract killers tend to know other contract killers or their clients, and should be willing to provide enough information there to reduce his own sentence. This can also go, considering in the original example, this killer rats out his own client.

 

[Lyri]

Whilst she completely fabulous in every way and I would do terrible, terrible things to Miss Scarlet here. The positioning of that fire is somewhat comical I must admit.

OT: They both get the same amount of responsibility; neither of them would have killed one man without the other.
The assassin simply has no reason to do so and the contractor cannot it himself hence why he hires an assassin.

 

[alandavidson]

If you're looking for a case precedent there is an ongoing case in Oklahoma in which an 18 year-old was hired to kill a woman's husband, did so, and now both are being tried for 1st degree murder.

Side note, the woman's 14 year old daughter was initially charged with 1st degree murder and would be tried as an adult, but the charges were reduced to accomplice to murder, tried in juvenile court.

 

[Pseudoboss]

I think both, just as we think of both Hitler and the Nazis in the same manner, but I don't think that Hitler ever killed anyone himself (don't quote me on that). Neither one is more or less innocent (provided that both the client and the assassin were acting of their own accord.) However, I think that the assassin should be punished more severely, because he generally killed more people in her career, than the client ordered to be killed in his career. Therefore, removing the assassin would have more benefit than removing the client, similar to getting a drug dealer versus a drug addict, the dealer may have dozens of users using his/her services.

 

[Lyri]

Different question: Who made the pizza? You, calling Antonio's or Antonio himself, standing in the kitchen DOING THE JOB?

If nobody called, nobody would make pizza.