A hypothetical question:
If I hired Mr. X to Kill Mr. Y, and he does am I also responsible for the murder?
I recently had this discussion and I feel that the person who commits the act of murder itself (Mr. X) is the only responsible (punishable) individual because he violated the victim's (Mr. Y) rights. My influencing Mr. X seems irrelevant as I didn't force him to do anything.
My opposition says that both I and Mr. X are responsible because I directly paid him. I think that such a position is illogical as there are many, many things that can produce a murderer and to single out the provider of money (and punish him) is to draw an arbitrary line between whats responsible and what isn't.
Any opinions on the topic would be appreciated (bonus appreciation towards scholarly work on the subject).
Angurse:If I hired Mr. X to Kill Mr. Y, and he does am I also responsible for the murder?
Yes.
If you want to kill a person you employ a means to achieve that result. One example would be picking up a gun and shoot them. But inanimate objects are not the only possible means; another example would be calling up a hit man and hiring them to do it for you.
In the first case you arent off the hook just becuase you used the gun to commit murder, and in the second case you are not off the hook just because you used another person to commit murder.
The hit man, like the bullet, was set into motion by your actions.
JonBostwick:The hit man, like the bullet, was set into motion by your actions.
But unlike the bullet, I did not force the hit man to do a thing. The hit man can say "no" the bullet cannot.
Angurse: JonBostwick:The hit man, like the bullet, was set into motion by your actions. But unlike the bullet, I did not force the hit man to do a thing. The hit man can say "no" the bullet cannot.
Which is why the hitman will sit next to you in court and the bullet won't.
JonBostwick: Which is why the hitman will sit next to you in court and the bullet won't.
Why exactly am I in court for not killing someone? I did not commit the act of murder, all I did was offer money.
Is nudging someone towards crime a crime itself?
Angurse:Is nudging someone towards crime a crime itself?
It depends on the context. But acting concertedly, as in the case of the hitman, definitely does.
Because you used the individual as a means to an end, much like one uses a gun toward such an end. Kinsella has a paper on this, outlining his theory of causality, in which he pretty much agrees with what I just said. You might want to google it to see the underlying reasoning.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
What if there's no payment involved? What if I taunted or tempted him in shoulder-devil fashion into murder, or overcooked his steak causing him to get angry and kill someone? Would I be responsible for the murder?
Maybe if the hitman included a provision in his contract that demanded that the client share in the responsibility if brought to court, but otherwise I don't see how the client can be held legally responsible.
I HATE PAPER
Angurse:I think that such a position is illogical as there are many, many things that can produce a murderer and to single out the provider of money (and punish him) is to draw an arbitrary line between whats responsible and what isn't.
Okay, what if instead of money, you provide the hitman with some other resource, say the key to the victim's home. (To avoid you going tangent on me: consider the key as being obtained legimitely -- say, the victim is your wife, so that's just the key to your house you are giving.) Wouldn't you say that constitutes you as an accomplice of murder then?
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
Well, considering that the client is using the agent as a means to an end, much like one uses a gun as a means to an end, why not render both liable?
If the client is actually using something to kill someone, then, to be technical, I would not say that it is the hitman that is used but rather the hitman's action (i.e. pulling the trigger), or perhaps knowledge of that future action. This raises a much deeper question: since all human action requires means, what type of thing constitutes a means? One's body, land, occupied space, and property in general certainly can, but someone else's action?... Anyway, I'm unable to think very clearly right now (and everything I've typed so far is probably just babbling), but I may be able to form a stronger opinion after I wake up.
Regardless, if assassination works the same way in the real world that it does in my imagination, the client probably pays the hitman not only to perform the dirty deed, but also to assume all risk and liability. Legally all responsibility is transferred to the hitman.
BlackSheep: Angurse:I think that such a position is illogical as there are many, many things that can produce a murderer and to single out the provider of money (and punish him) is to draw an arbitrary line between whats responsible and what isn't. Okay, what if instead of money, you provide the hitman with some other resource, say the key to the victim's home. (To avoid you going tangent on me: consider the key as being obtained legimitely -- say, the victim is your wife, so that's just the key to your house you are giving.) Wouldn't you say that constitutes you as an accomplice of murder then?
An accomplice, sure.
Responsible, no.
Jon Irenicus: Because you used the individual as a means to an end, much like one uses a gun toward such an end. Kinsella has a paper on this, outlining his theory of causality, in which he pretty much agrees with what I just said. You might want to google it to see the underlying reasoning. -Jon
Individuals aren't inanimate objects though. I disagree with the notion that one can simply use another individual like one can use a gun.
Angurse: I disagree with the notion that one can simply use another individual like one can use a gun.
The idea of humans being "employed" by another is pretty silly, right?
Perhaps it actually should be the opposite. After all, it is the intent of the one who hires a hitman which is carried out. The hitman would almost certainly have never harmed the victim if you had not paid him to. He is just a professional with a certain set of stills and equipment, and valuable ones at that. Maybe only the hirer should be punished, if it can be discovered who it is.
JonBostwick: Angurse: I disagree with the notion that one can simply use another individual like one can use a gun. The idea of humans being "employed" by another is pretty silly, right?
In comparison to a gun being used, yes.