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

[Lilani]

Ignoring all the legal conventions, I'm going to say the client is more responsible. If all assassins in the world were to suddenly disappear, that doesn't mean the prospective clients don't still want somebody dead. And if there are no assassins to do the job, I'm sure many will find some other way to get it done. They are motivated by emotion, which takes any opportunity it can.

On the other hand, if all clients were to disappear, chances are the assassins won't kill anybody. Money is their motivator. So without anybody willing to give them money, they don't have a reason to bother.

 

[SillyBear]

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.

That is such a cliche.

Guns don't have a conscious and a brain and aren't human. They aren't held to any standard because they are inanimate objects. All humans are responsible for all their actions, this nonsense of "the assassin is just the shell! Just a tool!" is ridiculous and it suggests that human beings do not have moral responsibilities. Which they do.

Anyway, I think both are equally to blame and should receive the same punishment.

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.

And if there was nobody to make the pizza, the caller would have to eat something else instead.

i.e: Both parties are equally responsible. With just one party there is no result.

 

[T8B95]

I'd say that the assassin is more responsible. They're the one pulling the trigger.

As to who gets the greater punishment, that depends on...

Spoiler

Is Scarlet Johansson the assassin?

 

[Trippy Turtle]

The assassin was the one who killed him, he is responsible. The client is any better but he did not commit the murder.

 

[TonyVonTonyus]

It's the assassin's job, if the client did not want the person killed the assassin would never have struck, so with youtr ultimatum, the client is more responsible but personally I think it's the target's fault. If you make someone hate ou as much as to spend several thousand dollars on a hitman I thin you screwed up somewhere.

 

[lion el jhonson]

its like thane said "You can kill a man with a gun but do you hold the gun responsible?"

 

[mjc0961]

Both should be charged. Whoever gets the less severe punishment is the one who flips for a deal first. None of that "the assassin is just the tool" or "the person wouldn't be dead without an assassin" stuff applies because both parties are human beings who can think for themselves and thus are both equally responsible. But who gets the harder punishment is generally decided by who will flip, and they'll try to get one to flip if it means getting the other guy too.

 

[FalloutJack]

The right and proper answer, what the law will actually convict with evidence, is that the assassin goes down on first degree murder, having committed the act in cold blood without question. His client is not the person who did the killing, but I believe they charge you with manslaughter for bringing about death indirectly. The client would be hit with a higher charge of this, just shy of murder because while he did not commit the act, he set it in motion willfully and with malicious intent.

They ARE both guilty and responsible, but in different levels of it. The only difference is that the client was too much of a chickenshit to kill anyone himself.

 

[Tsaba]

Simply supply and demand:
if there is no demand for assassins then there would be no assassins

So I say screw the client a LOT harder to encourage no one to want to hire assassins

 

[Dane Tesston]

Though both are responsible, I'd have to go with giving the bigger punishment to the client. The assassin wouldn't have killed if they hadn't been hired (just going around killing willy-nilly is bad for business, after all), so if it weren't for the client nobody would be dead. Of course, the client could just cut out the middle man and do it themselves, but that defeats the purpose of the dissucssion, now dosen't it?

 

[madster11]

Client.

The Assassin is doing they're job.
You wouldn't blame the police dog for biting your hand off is the cop told it to, right?

Same sort of deal. Assassins do what they do. They don't lie about it, and they do a job for money like anyone else.

The client, on the other hand, wanted the person dead and is basically using the assassin as an automatic gun you can press a button on that will do all the work.

The Assassin should get a tough manslaughter sentence while the client gets the murder charge.

 

[aei_haruko]

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.

Hmm, what if the assassin is poor? Likw I think i read a story where there was a 14 year old boy who was a client killer, he had nothing, and the cartels offered him food, shelter, and some human dignity, is he guilty? Idk, just curious, thoughts? Btw, nice kuro avatar

 

[sage42]

The Client, as many assassins from games have pointed out they are merely the weapon used to kill said victim. Weather that weapon be sword gun or poison, they are just doing their job. Mind you it's not in my views a very moral or just job, but hey if they have no choice what are you gonna do?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

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.

Hmm, what if the assassin is poor? Likw I think i read a story where there was a 14 year old boy who was a client killer, he had nothing, and the cartels offered him food, shelter, and some human dignity, is he guilty? Idk, just curious, thoughts? Btw, nice kuro avatar

Poor or rich, one must take responsibility for one's actions.

 

[madster11]

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.

Hmm, what if the assassin is poor? Likw I think i read a story where there was a 14 year old boy who was a client killer, he had nothing, and the cartels offered him food, shelter, and some human dignity, is he guilty? Idk, just curious, thoughts? Btw, nice kuro avatar

This is important, too.

Some Assassins only become so because they have no other choice. Some are brainwashed so hard they barely have anything that could be called 'free will'.

The Assassin doesn't want a specific person dead. The client does.

 

[robert01]

The client is responsible.

An assassin is no different than hiring a plumber to fix a leak.
He is a professional.

 

[artanis_neravar]

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.

But with out the client the assassin wouldn't have a reason to kill the target. The assassin is the weapon used by the client to commit murder, it just so happens that the weapon is intelligent and knows the consequences of their actions so they are just as guilty.

For your examples: They are both legal so there not really good comparisons, but I'll go with it you are using the carpenter as a tool to build your house, and you are using the doctor to repair your leg, without your consent and money neither would get done.

 

[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.

That is such a cliche.

Guns don't have a conscious and a brain and aren't human. They aren't held to any standard because they are inanimate objects. All humans are responsible for all their actions, this nonsense of "the assassin is just the shell! Just a tool!" is ridiculous and it suggests that human beings do not have moral responsibilities. Which they do.

Glad to see you read the second half of my post which states pretty much that.

 

[aei_haruko]

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.

Hmm, what if the assassin is poor? Likw I think i read a story where there was a 14 year old boy who was a client killer, he had nothing, and the cartels offered him food, shelter, and some human dignity, is he guilty? Idk, just curious, thoughts? Btw, nice kuro avatar

Poor or rich, one must take responsibility for one's actions.

ah yes, but if one kills in self defence, is it murder? Or if said person has to steal to survive, is said theft bad? Likewise, if a person needs to kill to live, or to protect his family, is it murder? What if said "payment" is the safe return of his family, or if hes doing it to get enough food to survive for a night? What then?