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

[Cowabungaa]

Of course it's both, despite your analogy with other tasks. The assassin is the tool the client uses to get the person he wants dead six feet under for real. The client doesn't just have the will to kill, he makes sure he dies too, if indirectly. He follows up to his wish and makes it reality with the help of someone else.

But because this tool is concious and willing, it's to blame as well and deserves punishment.

Also:

THE. CLIENT. DOES. NOT. KILL!

Indirectly he does. The assassin would not have done it without his concent; the client wields the tool that kills. Instead of using a gun or a knife to kill him, he uses an assassin. He made his wish of him being dead reality.

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]

But a gun is not concious, a gun does not think about the gunman pulling the trigger and decide "Okay, I'll release this bullet now." An assassin, while being the client's tool to commit murder, has still chosen to commit that murder out of his own will, hence why he gets the blame as well.

And Thane is silly anyway, with his soul nonsense.

 

[Shock and Awe]

The client by far. The assassin is only in it because of the client, and the client could do it themselves, so it doesn't change the outcome. The assassin should be charged less, maybe with a 2nd Degree murder or something, but the client should get full penalization under the law.

 

[WaruTaru]

The client by far. The assassin is only in it because of the client, and the client could do it themselves, so it doesn't change the outcome. The assassin should be charged less, maybe with a 2nd Degree murder or something, but the client should get full penalization under the law.

There is fallacy in that logic there.

If the client could do it themselves, they have no need for assassins in the first place, thus completely removing the assassin from the picture. If the assassin is removed, the client bears the weight of the crime in its entirety.

However, if the client cannot commit the crime himself for whatever reason, then the target wouldn't have died in the first place, no matter how strong the client wish for the target's death. Intention alone does not result in death.

Assassins to a certain degree are like drug dealers. They provide the customers with what they want, just like a normal business. They prey on their customer's innate desires to do things which are illegal by giving the customers easy access to their products and services. People succumb to their desires very, very easily.

Take the banning of tobacco advertisement for example. Given the slightest of opportunities, people will do things that are bad for them if they are satisfied with their actions in the short term. If hitmans are allowed to put out advertisments, the death toll will rise. Plenty of people out there holds a grudge for stupid reasons, and if hitmans are legalized and allowed to advertise, you can bet people will engage them for every little thing.

If that is the case, wouldn't the assassin be at fault here for preying on human weakness by offering their services to a client? If the tobacco industry were at fault for a relatively harmless advertisement, shouldn't the assassin, who causes a more direct harm, be wearing the same shoes as the tobacco industry when they "advertise" their services to their clients? Accordingly, shouldn't they receive a harsher sentence than the client? You don't blame the smokers for buying cigarettes, you blame the company for selling them, no?

 

[GigaHz]

Its always the client.

Without the client, there could be no contract killing for a hitman.

While you could say that it's the hitman that is doing the deed, the hitman doesn't go around blindly killing people without a contract. The hitman is merely the tool for the execution. In a legal sense, they would both be put on trail anyway.

 

[CrystalShadow]

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?

OK, but the assassin has no motive to kill anyone they aren't being paid to kill.

If you didn't pay your carpenter, they wouldn't be trying to build a house at all. (or they'd be working for someone else).

Your doctor is the one that fixed your leg, certainly, but he wouldn't be doing so if you didn't need/want him to.

Remember, intent, not just actions.

An assassin is a person, yes. But in a way they're also a tool.

You want someone dead. The assassin obliges you if you pay them enough money.

In some ways this is little different than buying a gun and shooting someone. It is in fact easier, because you don't have to face the guilt, risk, or problems of committing the murder yourself.

You're paying someone to save you from having to do so yourself.

Is the assassin liable? Of course. They are a person, with their own independent judgement. And they did kill someone, after all.
Not to mention that, in killing someone for you, they made the task easier for you;

If you couldn't actually find an assassin, and tried to do it yourself, you might have failed, or been unable to go through with it.

(that's the same with anyone you hire to do something. You can probably do it yourself, but the person you hired is likely to be better at it than you are, so it's likely to be quicker, less prone to mistakes, and generally much more efficient.)