Who deserves more punishment, the contract killer or the one giving the order?
by 
Zack Be Gone - All Hail Firebrand.
ANSWERS: 14
-
Contract killer. He is the one who pulled the trigger. He is the one who is the murderer.
-
Both are equally responsible and should get the same punishment.
-
The killer is still the one actually pulling the trigger and deserves the greater punishment. Life is about CHOICES and the killer had the opportunity to say "no". The one giving such an order is guilty also, but I would say not as much as the one doing the killing. People can order you to do things all day long and there is no condemnation. When you Choose to carry out those orders, you make yourself culpable.
-
I disagree with the rationale of all the other answers, but I concur on the outcome. Whether you pull the trigger yourself or hire someone else to do it, the result is that someone wrongfully dies as a result of your actions. Thus, in that sense you are as culpable as the person you hire. However, the purpose of punishment is deterrence. Most people who hire someone to kill will never hire to kill again. The contract killer, on the other hand, will kill anytime someone pays his price. Thus, the contract killer needs more of a deterrent (i.e. harsher punishment).
-
the order.... i'd kill someone for 200k it's just a job.
-
They both need to be thrown into the lions'cage.
-
the one who actually kills should get the worst punishment
-
the one that pulls the trigger
-
Funny I was thinking about this today....Id say the one doing the contracting.....
-
I believe both to be equally culpable. But having said that, I do tend to agree w/ Anonymous' assessment that the one doing the contracting is unlikely to do so again, while the actual killer is likely to repeat his actions if the price were right. Tough question, but if I were the judge, I would make sure both got sentences that would not allow them to kill again.
-
The contract killer. Think of it. We ALL have fantasies of violence. Yes, if at that precise second we had a gun in our hands, we might well have offed someone. Well, if hired guns weren't around, all we'd have are the fantasies of violence.
-
I think it's about a 51-49% split with the one giving the order being 51%. I figure it because they are the real reason the person is dead. They probably would have found some way to kill the target, even if the contract killer was not an option. However it is just as bad to be hired and go around killing people!
-
They deserve the same amount of punishment. They should be viewed as a joint partnership. The contract killer might not like the idea of killing people, but he or she might be desperate for his or her freedom and access to necessities. Maybe the contract killer would never think of killing someone if he or she had the type of money that the one giving the order has. Therefore, the contract killer will do things that people who are good at making money tell him or her to do. They both deserve to be punished equally.
-
The one giving the order. As for the contract killer, i would cut his testicles off - since he's not obviously using them. I hate fucking tools like that.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC