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

[Sinclair Solutions]

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]

THANK YOU. I was trying to remember who said this (my post is right above yours). You provided the answer!

Here is your cookie:

Spoiler

 

[Harlief]

I terms of the client they have the means, motive and opportunity the same as the assassin:
Means: an assassin
Motive: for whatever reason they ordered the hit
Opportunity: whenever they decide the hit should go down

 

[A Weakgeek]

Without clients, there would be no assasins. However any desperate human can be made a murderer with enough encouragement.

 

[IceStar100]

I never got it to me an assassin is a tool. Like a gun they have no real reason or not to kill it's about money.

Do you blame the gun or the shooter. That said an assassin is still a thinking being and knows right from wrong but that was the best way I could spin it.

 

[Krinku]

I think of it as how the assassins the gun, the clients the shooter type thing.

 

[Aprilgold]

Client should get more punishment then the assassin, for all we know, the assassin could be a homeless man who just wanted to get a home.

 

[PureIrony]

While their both responsible for the act of murder, the client must assume the responsibility for the particular murder that takes place. An assassin is simply a selective murderer: what makes him selective is the client, and therefore should assume the majority of the blame.

 

[WaruTaru]

The Client has the money to pay an assassin but not the courage to pull the trigger himself. Arguably, the client only meant to eliminate/kill one person. Also, if the client never managed to hire an assassin, all the client have is intent. You can't convict someone because he/she has the intention to cause death.

The Assassin has been killing all his life. He doesn't need a motive per se to do so. As long as money is involved, he is willing to kill anyone. It doesn't matter if the target is good or evil. He treats life as a number and not a person.

The assassin doesn't care who dies as long as he lives. The client, on the other hand, has a specific target he wants to get rid of, and once the target dies he (arguably) no longer need to kill another. Assuming the crime is based on intention alone, the assassin intends to kill many more people while the client may not have any further intent to kill beyond his first target.

If the assassin needs money to survive, and the only way to get it is by killing, then he/she should earn the amount needed with one job, or not do it at all. What makes the assassin so special that he/she can end so many lives in order to continue living him/herself? After all, shouldn't all lives be equal?

Circumstances surrounding the killing makes for some fantastic sob story, but in the end a person still died. All lives being equal, the assassin should get the heavier punishment simply because he/she ended way more lives than the client ever did.

The assassin should get the heavier punishment simply because there is no end to his killing spree when compared to the client.

 

[Pyroguekenesis]

None of them, an assassin is supposed to do his job well. And, well, if the guy is an assassin or girl or whatever, there should have been a binding contract between the two. Eg. Golgo 13, he does not kill a person without GOOD reason.
And Shelly from Phoenix Wright, if the client breaks the contract, he should be dead as well.
And well, if we take it as a humanitarian point of view, 'assassin' obviously the person has done it before. I have completely forgotten everything I was supposed to say.... **** =_=;

 

[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]

THANK YOU. I was trying to remember who said this (my post is right above yours). You provided the answer!

Here is your cookie:

Spoiler

Lol I have good timing. I had no idea.

 

[Walter44]

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.

Using that logic, it wasn't Columbus who discovered America, but the Spanish king.

You know, if I want someone dead, I have basically three options:
1. Just say "f*** it" and wait 'til either one of us dies naturally (or by accident) or something different happens that brings the solution to my problem with this person
2. killing him myself, ENSURING that a person dies
3. contracting a professional who could still say "no"

All the client does is say "Go kill this person". It's the killer's choice whether he does it or not. The killer is the one committing the crime. THAT'S WHY HE'S CALLED THE KILLER! He's not just a tool used to "get a job done". If I take a gun and shoot someone with it, then the gun is the tool and I'm the killer. But a gun does neither possess a knowledge of what is considered "right" or "wrong" (or at least "legal" and "illegal") nor does it have in anyway the ability to say "no". The killer has.

You're saying "would the client not choose the assassin, there would be no murder". Well, for the sake of argument, let's consider the client is the type of guy who hires an assassin not only out of "convenience" but because he's unable or unwilling to ever carry out the task alone. If there were no contract killers on planet earth there would still be many people who would pay for seeing other people get killed, but it wouldn't happen.

The client is just someone who wants something. The killer is the one with the power to grant him his wish or not. When you say that the client is more or equally responsible, then you can also visit a spa and later say that you gave yourself a massage...

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I'd say the client is more responsible than the assassin.

Being a contract killer is simply a "job" like any other.He gets payed to kill someone specific at the client's orders without any regard of who that might be.

 

[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

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.

It's the intent of the act as long as the act is attempted. There's not really anything wrong with wanting someone dead, but when you act on it that's where it might become wrong. Now if you kill a guy who you know has planted a bomb in a school, it's not wrong because your intent is to protect children, but if you kill your business competitor it is wrong because your intent is greed. As for the attempted murder - murder thing, they should both be just as bad (unless you stop yourself from committing murder)

 

[Lyri]

You're saying "would the client not choose the assassin, there would be no murder".

Generalising to suit your argument, it's a specific instance not a world wide thing. In this instance it's perfectly true, the intent is there but the means is not.
Should the client phone it in and hire a killer then he is in part responsible for it happening. End of discussion really.

The client is just someone who wants something. The killer is the one with the power to grant him his wish or not. When you say that the client is more or equally responsible, then you can also visit a spa and later say that you gave yourself a massage...

Of course you can, people do say that you know. "I went to the spa and treated myself to a massage".
My logic is correct, you're denying the client responsibility on the same grounds you're saying the assassin has responsibility the choice.

The client has two options;
Hire one
Don't hire one.

The assassin has two options;
Do.
Don't.

You're also over looking the fact that it's a crime to conspire toward murder.
They both share the same responsibility in the equation. Your logic is faulty.

 

[funguy2121]

Seriously, what does Scarlett have to do with any of...

(drool)

 

[Scrubiii]

The assassin is more responsible because they actually did the killing. The assassin should get charged with murder and the client with accomplice to murder.

It's true that the assassin would not have killed anyone without the client's input, but they wouldn't have killed anyone if they had never been conceived and no-one holds the parents responsible for this.

 

[Dr.Panties]

If explosive flatulence is the price of such a sublime posterior, so be it!

 

[Walter44]

*snip*

The client. Doesn't. Kill.

He's a man (or she's a woman) with a grudge and enough lack of conscience to pay someone else money just so a third person dies.

But. He doesn't. Kill.

The assassin is the dirty, cowardly, despicable and inhuman little piece of dirt that is willing to end the life of any random person, as long as another random person pays him enough money. Whereas the client at least has some personal motivation to see the target dead (which is still immoral, don't get me wrong), the assassin is in it just for the money. And he's the one holding the gun and pulling the trigger, not spending a minute reflecting whether this is right or wrong.

The client makes the choice to hire the assassin.
But the assassin makes the far more important choice to kill a person.

THE. CLIENT. DOES. NOT. KILL!

 

[Scarim Coral]

Both.
The cilent simpley doesn't wantto get his/ her hands dirty or lack the ability to kill in a professional manner.
Sure the assassin is doing his/ her job (bear to ill toward the target unless it's personal) and while it true and he/ she can change his/ her mind but it still killing at the end of the day.

 

[Lyri]

snip

So under your logic, when war crimes are committed who is at fault. The leader who ordered them or the soldiers who did them?

The answer is both whether you want to use your terribly naive way of thinking or not.

Another example, if I ordered a hit man to kill you now because of this thread. Who is responsible for your death?