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

[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?

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

Okaii dokii, nighty nite. And Hmm... Idk, I think that if it is justifiable, and if the acts of many deeds can outweigh the sin of one deed, then maybe the deed wasn't that bad

 

[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?

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.

Yep, I'd have to say that i agree, if a man can't feed his kids, or perhaps to defend those he loves, idk, I think that one needs to look a ton when morality is involved

 

[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.

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

Yeah I apologize, I misunderstood what you were going for, I say that he is still responsible for his actions, but those actions are justified. And I believe that it is yourself before anyone else, none of that needs of the many bullshit, someone tells me that I have a choice, either I die right there or a room full of twenty strangers gets blow up killing them all, I will opt to save my own life every time

 

[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.

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.

No because you didn't instruct her to, she wasn't your tool. Now if you told her I want you to kill me wife then you would be equally responsible

 

[AMMO Kid]

The target is responsible for doing something being worth killed for. That's my answer. Yes that is my answer. That is definitely the answer that is prescribed to me. The answer that you read is the answer which is the answer to the thing which needed answering and it is the answer which is mine. That's my answer. The answer which you put into your brain to be processed and understood is the answer which I have answered unto you for the thing which needs answering.

 

[Psiboom]

I'd say that both are equally responsible.

Regardless of circumstances, together they're the same as a person who went out and killed a person themselves.

The client has the motive, as does a regular murderer(In most cases).

Because, the client wants whoever it is dead afterall. If a murderer loses their weapon, they'll probably freak out and get another, more than likely. The same goes for the client of an assassin, except it's less likely they'll be freaking out.

Both have a means, the client, access to an assassin by some strange means, and the murderer, whatever weapon they're using.

Now, I just placed the assassin and gun/knife/whateverthehell as parallels, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna pull a Thane. Simply because the assassin offers the service to kill people for money, and it's their main intent. People aren't going to go, "HURDURR, HE'S JUST DOING HIS JAWB". He's kinda killing people, and people aren't treated like guns, they're expected to be able to obtain money without say, murdering people. Just saying.

While there is the chance that the assassin could be forced into by means of economic struggle, forced into it by one mean or another. Those are just mitigating factors, people are always going to believe that there was another way, so it's not going to relieve the responsibility entirely.

 

[Drakmorg]

I'm gonna go with the client.

An assassin is like a shovel, it's used to make digging holes easier for someone.

The client can dig a hole by himself if he wants to, it's just that the shovel lets him do so without getting his hands dirty.

In the end, it's the client that decides he wants a hole in the ground, not the shovel.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

No because you didn't instruct her to, she wasn't your tool. Now if you told her I want you to kill me wife then you would be equally responsible.

You can be manipulated into doing something without being instructed to. An add for beer says "You'll meet beautiful women like this if you drink beer" so you go buy some. Your boss says, "I won't be happy if those papers aren't on my desk" so you go file the papers. The man tells his mistress "We would be so happy together if my wife was dead." so she kills her. I tell someone, "A lot of money will come into your possession if this man dies" so he goes and does it.

In all those cases, someone sets up a reason for another to perform a task, but the one who preforms the task is ultimately making the decision to do it. Blaming the client for the murder is like blaming a beer add for alcohol poisoning.

 

[zehydra]

The assassin and the assassin alone is the responsible for the murder. Only the perpetrators of an act can be responsible for it.

The client however, IS responsible of another, different crime: Paying money for killings. These are two separate crimes, which ought to be tried separately.

You cannot hold the client responsible, because he did not do the actual killing. End of story.

 

[artanis_neravar]

No because you didn't instruct her to, she wasn't your tool. Now if you told her I want you to kill me wife then you would be equally responsible.

You can be manipulated into doing something without being instructed to. An add for beer says "You'll meet beautiful women like this if you drink beer" so you go buy some. Your boss says, "I won't be happy if those papers aren't on my desk" so you go file the papers. The man tells his mistress "We would be so happy together if my wife was dead." so she kills her. I tell someone, "A lot of money will come into your possession if this man dies" so he goes and does it.

In all those cases, someone sets up a reason for another to perform a task, but the one who preforms the task is ultimately making the decision to do it. Blaming the client for the murder is like blaming a beer add for alcohol poisoning.

Cigaret adds were blamed for children smoking, it all depends on what the clients intentions are, the beer add just wants you to drink not get alcohol poising, hiring an assassin you want your target dead and a helping make it happen, so you are just as guilty

 

[johnboy424]

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

A living, breathing, person is never simply "a weapon." The assassin chose to kill the victim and killed him/her. Assuming that the assassin wasn't forced to perform the killing and that s/he was in the right mental state to make that decision, s/he is just as guilty, if not more guilty, than the client.

Also, for any of you who have an interest in the subject of assassins, their clients, and the morality of what they do, should look into the movie The Matador. It's about the strange, awkward friendship between a hitman (played by Pierce Brosnan) and a relatively regular guy (Greg Kinnear). I don't want to give anything away, so other than that I'll just say that it comes with high recommendations.

 

[scar_47]

Both are equally guilty but in different ways the client is willing to go to such lengths to murder another but unwilling or unable to do it themselves which I see as rather cowardly, the assassin has little or nor regard for society's perceived value of human life and is willing to end anothers for money. Legally they should recieve the same punishment as they both contributed equally to the crime. You and you alone are responsible for your actions regardless of circumstances.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

No because you didn't instruct her to, she wasn't your tool. Now if you told her I want you to kill me wife then you would be equally responsible.

You can be manipulated into doing something without being instructed to. An add for beer says "You'll meet beautiful women like this if you drink beer" so you go buy some. Your boss says, "I won't be happy if those papers aren't on my desk" so you go file the papers. The man tells his mistress "We would be so happy together if my wife was dead." so she kills her. I tell someone, "A lot of money will come into your possession if this man dies" so he goes and does it.

In all those cases, someone sets up a reason for another to perform a task, but the one who preforms the task is ultimately making the decision to do it. Blaming the client for the murder is like blaming a beer add for alcohol poisoning.

Cigaret adds were blamed for children smoking, it all depends on what the clients intentions are, the beer add just wants you to drink not get alcohol poising, hiring an assassin you want your target dead and a helping make it happen, so you are just as guilty

Cigarette ads for kids are wrong, but I wouldn't charge the advertisers with murder or manslaughter.

You're basically arguing that the intent of the crime is what makes the crime rather than the physical act of doing so. If an evil maniac wants to exterminate the human race, but never has the means to do so, he should be charged mass genocide? Since I would pay ungodly amounts of money to sleep with Scarlett Johansson, should I be charged for soliciting prostitution? (not that prostitution should be illegal, but that's a whole other argument)

Hypothetically, if I pay someone to commit a murder, and the assassin was actually a government spy who turns me in, should I still be charged for murder because I wanted them to die? Admittedly, this is going off into the attempted murder vs murder debate which is a whole other story, though I still want to hear what you think about it.

 

[Craorach]

Who is more responsible? The killer.. the person responsible for any action is ALWAYS the person who performs that action, no exceptions or circumstances.

Who is more evil? The person paying. We can, I hope, presume that this person was a decent human being corrupted by greed or whatever. The corruption of a good person is always worse than the continuing evil of an evil one.

 

[TheLoneBeet]

I think each should be charged with something. However, they shouldn't be charged the same.

In my opinion, the assassin should be charged with the murder because they actually kill the target.

The client on the other hand, is the one who plots the murder, so they should be charged with conspiracy to commit or something along those lines.

Without the assassin (if in this hypothetical situation every assassin said no) the client is pretty much useless, because obviously they aren't capable or willing to commit the murder or they would have done it on their own.

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

There was this one quote by some character who was a hitman (can't remember who; anyone who can tell me will get a cookie), who said "I am simply a weapon. Some one else needs to pull the trigger." With this metaphor in mind, I have always found the client to be more responsible.

 

[easternflame]

The client. As Thane from ME2 says
[spoiler:if you haven't played ME2 don't look, although get out of here and go play it, better than the forums]The Assassin is the weapon, you don't blame the gun, you blame the one who pulls the trigger. And walmart. ALLWAYS Walmart.[/spoiler]

 

[Jegsimmons]

if you pay for a hit, your still committing murder in the first degree, my not be by your hands, but your the one to have him killed. so they are both equally guilty.

 

[Seieko Pherdo]

Why I would say both I also see Assassin's as mere tools. Unless hired they do nothing.

 

[Athinira]

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.

I'll also play Devils Advocate as well here then and make a comparison to soldiers.

Soldiers are, technically, assassins that operate in the open. They are paid (by the state) to do certain jobs that may, or may not, involve murdering people (which can include civilians, something there is always risked, especially when using heavy ordenance).

By that logic, the soldiers (and not the state that sponsored them) are the criminals and not the state Hell, the state even often pulls one worse than the clients for assassins and actually forces people into military service (forced conscription). In that case, the state of every warfaring country is more responsible than any client that hires an assassin.

Or to put it another way: In my eyes, assassins can be considered soldiers without a country, and (the predicted ME2 reference) soldiers can be considered a tool wielded by a client. Client is always the responsible part, at least morally. Legally? Different matter entirely, but then again I'm one of the persons who look at governments as institutions of vigilanties and remember this sentence said by a very wise man:

"The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things upside down."
- Richard Stallman