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

[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.

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

Thanks :3

I don't really see how being poor would make any difference. It would show why a person is more likely to kill I guess. But a poor assassin is just as guilty as a rich one in my opinion. It's the actions that make the person guilty, not the resons for them. In this example anyway.

 

[artanis_neravar]

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?

Who is responsible for the pizza places success? The people making the pizza or the people spending their money to buy the pizza?

 

[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

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.

THANK YOU!!!! yes, this is my point, one can't make a single concise, absolute statement with regards to morality

 

[OniYouji]

The assassin. He started the business, he is the one making money for murdering, and he could use his talents for much better purposes. If he was not in the assassination business, then the client cannot offer the money to kill someone. It all goes back to the assassin for starting the "assassination industry" in the first place. The client is not more guilty, as even if he does not go through with it, the assassin is still there and available to more potential clients. Without the assassin, there are no contract killings. The more guilty party is therefore the assassin.

 

[artanis_neravar]

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?

Self Defense is not murder, you did not put yourself in that situation they put you in it.

Stealing to survive is bad, it's understandable, but it is still bad.

Killing to live, you mean like a soldier at war? That is not murder but if a man puts a gun to your head and says shoot this guy or I kill you that is much more complicated

Killing to protect your family is only OK if you are killing the person threatening your family.

 

[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

Thanks :3

I don't really see how being poor would make any difference. It would show why a person is more likely to kill I guess. But a poor assassin is just as guilty as a rich one in my opinion. It's the actions that make the person guilty, not the resons for them. In this example anyway.

Nice, glad u like kuro, sebastian is soooo kewl^w^
Anyhoo, so What if a person is coerced? Like what if the " payment" is safe return of his family? Or if he needs to kill so he can feed people of his village and save them from starvation? In morality, there is no absolute, ya agree that a person is more justified in his killing if he had to kill, and if his 'payment" was the safety of his loved ones/ the killing of one person saved 20?

 

[artanis_neravar]

The assassin. He started the business, he is the one making money for murdering, and he could use his talents for much better purposes. If he was not in the assassination business, then the client cannot offer the money to kill someone. It all goes back to the assassin for starting the "assassination industry" in the first place. The client is not more guilty, as even if he does not go through with it, the assassin is still there and available to more potential clients. Without the assassin, there are no contract killings. The more guilty party is therefore the assassin.

If there was no client there wouldn't be any contract killing either

 

[zwoodco10]

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.

I was going to quote Thane here, but you beat me to it. I think the Assassin should get punished (perhaps 25-life), but that the Client should receive a heavier punishment (life/ death penalty).

 

[KingofallCosmos]

Hmm scarlett johansson... What's this thread about anyway? ow I don't know just that she's responsible.

 

[Composer]

client has the motive so id say the client

 

[johnboy424]

If you were asking which one makes them a "worse" person, then I would say the hit(wo)man because she actually pulls the trigger. A relatively innocent person could make the mistake of telling an assassin to kill someone, whereas the assassin herself is trained to murder and feel no compassion or guilt. She wouldn't look back on it as a horrible mistake, but as simply another job. The client, presumably a normal person, would feel guilty about it. I think the punishments should reflect this, but I know nothing about the laws themselves. However, it would probably be much harder to find evidence for the client's guilt than the hitman's, so I assume that she would receive harsher punishment.

Edit: Having read some of the other replies, I realize that I've made some generalizations here, but I don't think they're completely invalid. It's impossible to take every possibility into account, and I was just speaking in general considering the contents of the question. Also, I think it's necessary to assume some things about the situation, and not get caught up in all the "what if"s.

 

[GartarkMusik]

In the wise words of Thane Krios, (ME2) "An assassin is a weapon. A weapon does not choose to kill, the one who wields it does."

 

[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.

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

Thanks :3

I don't really see how being poor would make any difference. It would show why a person is more likely to kill I guess. But a poor assassin is just as guilty as a rich one in my opinion. It's the actions that make the person guilty, not the resons for them. In this example anyway.

Nice, glad u like kuro, sebastian is soooo kewl^w^
Anyhoo, so What if a person is coerced? Like what if the " payment" is safe return of his family? Or if he needs to kill so he can feed people of his village and save them from starvation? In morality, there is no absolute, ya agree that a person is more justified in his killing if he had to kill, and if his 'payment" was the safety of his loved ones/ the killing of one person saved 20?

Favourite was actually Madame Red. Just something about her as a character I liked. Felt bad when she got a chainsaw to the chest.

Again, I stil personally think that although eeding people would justify the killing, doesn't make killing itself an less wrong, or the killer any ess responsible. Again, and this is just me, these are probably good reasons for why someone would kill someone, but it's the killing itself I find that makes the person guilty. And can you justify a murder in these sort of situations? Personally I can't.

Course if I was in the killers shoes I might think differently but as it stands now, I'd still fnd them guilty, no matter the situation they are in.

And now I'm off to sleep. See ya :3

 

[pspman45]

The Client ordered the killing, and paid the fee
the Assassin should be punished, but not nearly as much, let him/her walk away early knowing that they are a shit assassin
But the Client will be forced to regret their choice for the rest of their life

 

[zwoodco10]

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

Thanks :3

I don't really see how being poor would make any difference. It would show why a person is more likely to kill I guess. But a poor assassin is just as guilty as a rich one in my opinion. It's the actions that make the person guilty, not the resons for them. In this example anyway.

Nice, glad u like kuro, sebastian is soooo kewl^w^
Anyhoo, so What if a person is coerced? Like what if the " payment" is safe return of his family? Or if he needs to kill so he can feed people of his village and save them from starvation? In morality, there is no absolute, ya agree that a person is more justified in his killing if he had to kill, and if his 'payment" was the safety of his loved ones/ the killing of one person saved 20?

Well, if you're looking at financial/social positions, and the assassin is a poor father who can't feed his children, then it would probably wind up like many of the crimes that follow this trend.

For instance, if a man who is the father of two children and is unable to find work were to, say, rob a bank, then he would, in most cases, receive a lighter punishment than a healthy, single, 2X year old man who simply doesn't want to work.

 

[aei_haruko]

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?

Self Defense is not murder, you did not put yourself in that situation they put you in it.

Stealing to survive is bad, it's understandable, but it is still bad.

Killing to live, you mean like a soldier at war? That is not murder but if a man puts a gun to your head and says shoot this guy or I kill you that is much more complicated

Killing to protect your family is only OK if you are killing the person threatening your family.

Heres what i mean:
There was a 14 year old boy in mexico, and he was an orphan. Had no money, no food, no hope. The cartels bring him in and offer him a deal, kill, and he'll have food, a home, and he'll be able to make money to help other orphans as well.
He takes the deal, and he kills 3 people overall. He is caught, and I was't able to read further. I'm saying this, he had no other options, and he probably would've died without the cartels food, and he even was able to get orphans food and was able to give the orphanage food and water ( I forgot where i read this, it was in an article I found in the paper one day, lost the copy too...) So To me, the kid didn't do anything wrong, that was my point. I'm just saying, morality isn't black and white. If something like killing can be justified, why can't other things be justified as well? an assassin has no motive other than what may, or may not be needed, wheras the motive of the client is always about the taking of a human life, the motive of an assassin might be justified

 

[OniYouji]

Exactly. Which means there will be other clients. His business will be ever-living, so long as a client somewhere out there exists. And just because one potential client decides not to, he will find another. If there were no clients at all, then the assassin would have to close shop, assuming he can move past his dark, corrupt habits. They shape him, pervert him, and haunt him for the rest of his life. The guilt of all the crimes had committed, or even just the thought of actually trying to set up a business where he put bread on the table by robbing another of life may still torment him, and wracking him with guilt. The client thinks of killing a specific person, and while still haunting, it is only one person and for some personal, but in the end, petty reason. The assassin has to live with the thought of wanting to, and possibly committing, murder. And his motivation? A paycheck, even more petty and even more shaping.

 

[Locko96]

The assassin is a weapon. You don't charge a gun with murder.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

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.

Again, just arguing for the sake of argument here, but all murder is done for a reason. You aren't the murderer just for creating the motive, even if it's intentional. If I fall in love with someone, but I'm already married; I might talk to my mistress like I wished someone would kill my wife. Let's say she decides to really do it and kill her, am I legally responsible for her death? I created the motive for murder and was the one who originally wanted her dead, but without the crazy mistress, she'd still be standing.