1. Post #1
    Marbalo's Avatar
    June 2011
    2,309 Posts
    What is your moral observation about hired hitmen? Is it wrong to accuse them of murder more so than the person who hired them? Is it wrong to accuse them of less? Is it justified to completely disregard them from legal jurisdiction and rather completely accuse the person who planned and payed for the murder?

    Should hired hitmen be judged the same way a regular murderer is judged? Given same sentence? Etc.

  2. Post #2
    Dennab
    April 2010
    5,256 Posts
    They are still committing murder regardless. Therefore, they should be treated as such. Being payed to do something is a non-factor in this equation IMO.

    The person hiring them should also be charged identically.

  3. Post #3
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    Hitmen are murderers. Murderers should go to jail. Somebody who pays a hitman should be punished under attempted murder.

  4. Post #4
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Sobotnik's Avatar
    July 2010
    21,442 Posts
    Punish both the hitman and the contractor exactly the same. Both are still committing the same crime and both should be punished the same as the other.

  5. Post #5
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    Punish both the hitman and the contractor exactly the same. Both are still committing the same crime and both should be punished the same as the other.
    Hiring somebody to commit murder is not the same as committing murder. Unless you take it as murder by proxy. But that's like suing an Internet proxy while pirates use it.

  6. Post #6
    Gold Member
    Jojje's Avatar
    January 2005
    5,200 Posts
    A hitman is essentially a weapon, and a weapon does not choose to kill. Regardless, a person should be charged for murder if he has committed one.
    The person who hired the hitman should be charged as well, but I'm not sure if it should be as harsh.

    I dunno. I'm kinda conflicted about all of it.

  7. Post #7
    Gold Member

    March 2005
    4,026 Posts
    Hiring somebody to commit murder is not the same as committing murder. Unless you take it as murder by proxy. But that's like suing an Internet proxy while pirates use it.
    I think it could still be classified as murder.
    You're just using a tool(contract killer) to end someone's life like any other murder.

    If either of them show malice aforethought(yes they both would) then it's murder.

  8. Post #8
    Glod Menber
    TurbisV2's Avatar
    May 2008
    24,440 Posts
    It's murder.
    Just because you get told to commit it by someone offering money it does not mean you are not a murderer.

    Edited:

    A hitman is essentially a weapon, and a weapon does not choose to kill. Regardless, a person should be charged for murder if he has committed one.
    The person who hired the hitman should be charged as well, but I'm not sure if it should be as harsh.

    I dunno. I'm kinda conflicted about all of it.
    If you use a hitman as a tool to get someone killed, you should be charged for murder. I don't know if that is the case but it should in my opinion.

  9. Post #9
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    14,142 Posts
    Hiring somebody to commit murder is not the same as committing murder. Unless you take it as murder by proxy. But that's like suing an Internet proxy while pirates use it.
    Under that logic someone who shoots another person didn't actually kill that person, the gun did.

  10. Post #10
    Codename 47's Avatar
    March 2008
    1,845 Posts
    They should both be punished about equally, seeing as the hitman is dangerous as a free man in society, and the person who hired him is the actual reason for the killing.

    Letting the hitman walk free would be silly, seeing as, if he hadn't been there, the client might not had had the means of killing, and would not have done it.

  11. Post #11
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    Under that logic someone who shoots another person didn't actually kill that person, the gun did.
    Using your logic the president is guilty of murdering children in Iraq.

  12. Post #12
    Glod Menber
    TurbisV2's Avatar
    May 2008
    24,440 Posts
    Hiring somebody to commit murder is not the same as committing murder. Unless you take it as murder by proxy. But that's like suing an Internet proxy while pirates use it.
    No, the internet proxy does not willingly carry out the deed of the pirates will... The pirates commit the crimes themselves.

    Please read what you wrote before you post it.

  13. Post #13
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    14,142 Posts
    Using your logic the president is guilty of murdering children in Iraq.
    I guess Stalin wasn't guilty of mass murder because he didn't do it with his own two hands.

  14. Post #14
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    I guess Stalin wasn't guilty of mass murder because he didn't do it with his own two hands.
    Just like George Bush wasn't guilty of torture right?

    Edited:

    No, the internet proxy does not willingly carry out the deed of the pirates will... The pirates commit the crimes themselves.
    The hitman doesn't have to kill the person, a gun does.

  15. Post #15
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    14,142 Posts
    Just like George Bush wasn't guilty of torture right?

    Edited:



    The hitman doesn't have to kill the person, a gun does.
    No George Bush is guilty of war crimes and human rights abuse

    I'm sorry but what exactly are you arguing here, you're defeating your own point.

  16. Post #16
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    No George Bush is guilty of war crimes and human rights abuse

    I'm sorry but what exactly are you arguing here
    I'm arguing that somebody who chooses to kill somebody (guns can't choose, don't know where you got that idea) should be punished, and somebody who gives the orders should be punished lighter as they didn't hurt anybody.

  17. Post #17
    Glod Menber
    TurbisV2's Avatar
    May 2008
    24,440 Posts
    I'm arguing that somebody who chooses to kill somebody (guns can't choose, don't know where you got that idea) should be punished, and somebody who gives the orders should be punished lighter as they didn't hurt anybody.
    No they didn't hurt anyone they just told a guy to kill them for money.
    That never hurt anybody!

  18. Post #18
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    14,142 Posts
    I'm arguing that somebody who chooses to kill somebody (guns can't choose, don't know where you got that idea) should be punished, and somebody who gives the orders should be punished lighter as they didn't hurt anybody.
    No they should be punished equally, as they both caused that persons death. If a dictator orders a genocide, he is still guilty of committing genocide.

  19. Post #19
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    No they didn't hurt anyone they just told a guy to kill them for money.
    That never hurt anybody!
    People who use hitmen are idiots.
    Hitmen are people who consciously kill people for money, and that's the thing that's wrong.

    Edited:

    No they should be punished equally, as they both caused that persons death. If a dictator orders a genocide, he is still guilty of committing genocide.
    Why is buying drugs less wrong than dealing them?

  20. Post #20
    Glod Menber
    TurbisV2's Avatar
    May 2008
    24,440 Posts
    People who use hitmen are idiots.
    Hitmen are people who consciously kill people for money, and that's the thing that's wrong.
    People who use hitmen are murderers who don't want people to know it.

  21. Post #21
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    14,142 Posts
    Why is buying drugs less wrong than dealing them?
    What the hell does that have to do with anything?

  22. Post #22
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    What the hell does that have to do with anything?
    Hitmen provide, people buy.

  23. Post #23
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    14,142 Posts
    Hitmen provide, people buy.
    But it's a completely different situation, they're barely comparable. A person buying drugs isn't hurting anyone, a person hiring a hitman is.

  24. Post #24
    Glod Menber
    TurbisV2's Avatar
    May 2008
    24,440 Posts
    If you wanted someone dead so bad you hire a hitman to do it for you, you are still the cause of that persons death.
    You murdered him.
    He would not have been dead if you did not pay a man to do it.
    There is no excuse, you should not get away with a shorter sentence, it is your fault the person is dead and you should pay for it.

    The hitman is a lowlife who cares so little for human life that he accepts money to end one.
    He is a dangerous murderer and should be sentenced with murder for it aswell.

  25. Post #25
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    If you wanted someone dead so bad you hire a hitman to do it for you, you are still the cause of that persons death.
    You murdered him.
    He would not have been dead if you did not pay a man to do it.
    There is no excuse, you should not get away with a shorter sentence, it is your fault the person is dead and you should pay for it.

    The hitman is a lowlife who cares so little for human life that he accepts money to end one.
    He is a dangerous murderer and should be sentenced with murder for it aswell.
    He wouldn't of been dead if he didn't existed, thus he's responsible for his own death!

  26. Post #26
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    14,142 Posts
    He wouldn't of been dead if he didn't existed, thus he's responsible for his own death!
    Just stop, we've already proved you wrong.

  27. Post #27
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    Just stop, we've already proved you wrong.
    For each of your arguments I've rebutted them, so in my mind I've already proven you wrong.

  28. Post #28
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    14,142 Posts
    For each of your arguments I've rebutted them, so in my mind I've already proven you wrong.
    You haven't rebutted the mat all, most of your arguments were incredibly poor and easily refutable.

    Any logic used to say that the person who hired the hitman shouldnt be charged as harshly as the hitman could easily be applied to any weapon used to kill a person.

    Although it really seems like you're just trolling now.

  29. Post #29
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    You haven't rebutted the mat all, most of your arguments were incredibly poor and easily refutable.

    Any logic used to say that the person who hired the hitman shouldnt be charged as harshly as the hitman could easily be applied to any weapon used to kill a person.

    Although it really seems like you're just trolling now.
    I'm saying that the person who hired the hitman should be charged less as they didn't actually kill anybody.

  30. Post #30
    For each of your arguments I've rebutted them, so in my mind I've already proven you wrong.
    If you can call claiming that conspirators to murder never hurt anybody a rebuttal.

  31. Post #31
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    If you can call claiming that conspirators to murder never hurt anybody a rebuttal.
    I'm not claiming that they never hurt anybody.

    Hitmen are murderers. Murderers should go to jail. Somebody who pays a hitman should be punished under attempted murder.

  32. Post #32
    It's not attempted murder. It's conspiracy. Attempted murder is if you (surprisingly enough) attempt to personally kill someone and fail.

  33. Post #33
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    I agree that it's conspiracy. For some reason in my original post I was thinking of a punishment less than murder and that was the first that came to mind, so I wrote it simply as it was less.

  34. Post #34
    TRA
    Gold Member
    TRA's Avatar
    February 2005
    386 Posts
    I'm saying that the person who hired the hitman should be charged less as they didn't actually kill anybody.
    They used the hitman as a tool to kill someone, it's the same thing as them taking a gun or knife and killing someone themselves. Whether or not the tool has the ability to think is irrelevant.

  35. Post #35
    I agree that it's conspiracy. For some reason in my original post I was thinking of a punishment less than murder and that was the first that came to mind, so I wrote it simply as it was less.
    That's assuming it doesn't actually happen. If the person is actually killed, both parties can be found guilty of murder. Why should not carrying out the deed yourself mean you are not as guilty if you arranged it? In that case, contract killing would have served its purpose wonderfully, protecting a guilty party from blame.

  36. Post #36
    Gold Member
    Captain Forever's Avatar
    March 2006
    725 Posts
    Hitmen are pretty badass, I believe it's a legitimate and very useful profession. I would always like that insurance of having a way to off my wife while maintaining a nice alibi.

  37. Post #37
    KillaGunna24's Avatar
    September 2009
    1,466 Posts
    I'm sure when they choose to be a hitman they acknowledge they will be getting their hands dirty and ending other peoples lives. More or less.
    So, charging the hitman would be obvious. He still did the murder. Although in my personal opinion I believe the person who hired the hitman should get a punishment equal to murder.

  38. Post #38
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    That's assuming it doesn't actually happen. If the person is actually killed, both parties can be found guilty of murder. Why should not carrying out the deed yourself mean you are not as guilty if you arranged it? In that case, contract killing would have served its purpose wonderfully, protecting a guilty party from blame.
    I wasn't consciously assuming it didn't happen, I just thought of a weaker punishment and that was the first thing that sprang to mind.

    I don't disagree that they're not as guilty, but I don't think murder is the right term for both of the people involved.

    Edited:

    I believe the person who hired the hitman should get a punishment equal to murder.
    This is all that I disagree with.

  39. Post #39
    I wasn't consciously assuming it didn't happen, I just thought of a weaker punishment and that was the first thing that sprang to mind.

    I don't disagree that they're not as guilty, but I don't think murder is the right term for both of the people involved.

    Edited:



    This is all that I disagree with.
    I understand that, I'm saying under the law both parties can be tried for murder. In both the US and UK I think.

  40. Post #40
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,511 Posts
    I understand that, I'm saying under the law both parties can be tried for murder. In both the US and UK I think.
    This thread is about morals, not the law.

    What is your moral observation about hired hitmen?