3 ms·

> One of the most crucial aspects of the death penalty is that it is reserved for people that physically kill other human beings. The mere fact that the laws of

by riquito 11y ago

> One of the most crucial aspects of the death penalty is that it is reserved for people that physically kill other human beings. The mere fact that the laws of a US state even allowed the possibility of a death sentence for someone that did not personally kill someone else is a serious problem. Death penalty aside, the boss that order to kill people should be given a lighter punishment because he didn't execute the evil action directly? I think he should have an heavier sentence instead.

matt-attack 11y ago
> I think he should have an heavier sentence instead. That's quite debatable. I'm not sure I even believe that the boss who ordered a kill is even guilty of a crime. If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. How can one person's crime be a function of another person's actions. It just doesn't compute.
- notahacker 11y ago
  I don't think I'm alone in being unable to compute the suggestion that someone who orders a murder is not guilty of any crime...
- knodi123 11y ago
  > If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. No, at that point it would be the crime of attempted murder.
  - matt-attack 11y ago
    Fair enough.
- qrendel 11y ago
  Because subordinates may be less qualified to judge whether the action is a crime or not. This would basically place the onus on the lowest level of the hierarchy in determining whether an action is ethically acceptable. People are frequently trained not to question their superiors judgment and to just follow orders. I'm not saying this is right, especially when in some cases the person executing the order may be in a better position to understand the implications, but it puts a conflict between expecting subordinates to second guess every order they're given, which isn't healthy for a well functioning organizational hierarchy. It also puts the person who would otherwise be "just following orders" at risk if they make a misjudgment, discouraging them from disobeying even if they suspect what they're doing is unethical.
  - matt-attack 11y ago
    > People are frequently trained not to question their superiors judgment and to just follow orders. Not in this country. In the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which governs the actions of our armed forces) it is a soldier's explicit responsibility to not follow illegal orders. And if a subordinate is not qualified or capable of determining if his actions are a crime or not (I'm thinking of a hitman, or mob underling), then that doesn't change whether or not he's guilty of the crime.
- patmcc 11y ago
  >I'm not sure I even believe that the boss who ordered a kill is even guilty of a crime. If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. How can one person's crime be a function of another person's actions. It just doesn't compute. You're joking, right? It should be legal to hire a hitman to kill someone? Or convince someone else to burn down my competitor's building? That's madness.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  Because intent matters. If you take out a murder-for-hire contract on someone else, irrespective of if that contact is carried out, your intent is illegal, immoral, and wrong. Now our legal system weighs both intent AND consequences. For example someone who hits someone else with their car may get charged with very different crimes depending on if that person lives or dies. Just to put you in the hot seat for a second, would you yourself want to live in a world where I could take out a contract on your life, and doing so would be entirely legal UNLESS they successfully killed you? Effectively allowing me to take out infinite contracts with complete impunity until you were dead?
  - matt-attack 11y ago
    > Just to put you in the hot seat for a second, would you yourself want to live in a world where I could take out a contract on your life, and doing so would be entirely legal UNLESS they successfully killed you? Effectively allowing me to take out infinite contracts with complete impunity until you were dead? Yes because presumably the degenerate who actually pulled the trigger would be punished. I believe there's only one guilty man in this scenario, and he's the one who pulled the trigger.
    - mreiland 11y ago
      There's only 1 person guilty of murder in this case, and 1 person guilty of paying for a murder. Those are two separate actions, both of which are illegal.
- bashinator 11y ago
  I believe if you commission a murder, that's a crime even if the murder is not committed.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I'm not sure I even believe that the boss who ordered a kill is even guilty of a crime.If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. The second part is incorrect; soliciting murder (or conspiring with another to commit murder; ordering a hit might be either or both depending on specific details) is a crime whether or not the murder actually occurs. If the murder actually occurs as a result of the solicitation/conspiracy, they are guilty of another and more serious crime, on top of the ones they were already guilty of. But they are guilty of a crime even without that. > How can one person's crime be a function of another person's actions. It just doesn't compute. Because in many cases, law is written and operates on the principal that if you take action intended to cause a result, and that does cause that result (whether or not there is an intermediary whose action is necessary), then you are culpable for the legal consequences of intentionally acting to produce that result, since that's exactly what you've done.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- riquito 11y ago
  "Death penalty aside"

by riquito 11y ago

matt-attack 11y ago

> I think he should have an heavier sentence instead. That's quite debatable. I'm not sure I even believe that the boss who ordered a kill is even guilty of a crime. If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. How can one person's crime be a function of another person's actions. It just doesn't compute.

notahacker 11y ago
I don't think I'm alone in being unable to compute the suggestion that someone who orders a murder is not guilty of any crime...
knodi123 11y ago
> If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. No, at that point it would be the crime of attempted murder.
- matt-attack 11y ago
  Fair enough.
qrendel 11y ago
Because subordinates may be less qualified to judge whether the action is a crime or not. This would basically place the onus on the lowest level of the hierarchy in determining whether an action is ethically acceptable. People are frequently trained not to question their superiors judgment and to just follow orders. I'm not saying this is right, especially when in some cases the person executing the order may be in a better position to understand the implications, but it puts a conflict between expecting subordinates to second guess every order they're given, which isn't healthy for a well functioning organizational hierarchy. It also puts the person who would otherwise be "just following orders" at risk if they make a misjudgment, discouraging them from disobeying even if they suspect what they're doing is unethical.
- matt-attack 11y ago
  > People are frequently trained not to question their superiors judgment and to just follow orders. Not in this country. In the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which governs the actions of our armed forces) it is a soldier's explicit responsibility to not follow illegal orders. And if a subordinate is not qualified or capable of determining if his actions are a crime or not (I'm thinking of a hitman, or mob underling), then that doesn't change whether or not he's guilty of the crime.
patmcc 11y ago
>I'm not sure I even believe that the boss who ordered a kill is even guilty of a crime. If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. How can one person's crime be a function of another person's actions. It just doesn't compute. You're joking, right? It should be legal to hire a hitman to kill someone? Or convince someone else to burn down my competitor's building? That's madness.
Someone1234 11y ago
Because intent matters. If you take out a murder-for-hire contract on someone else, irrespective of if that contact is carried out, your intent is illegal, immoral, and wrong. Now our legal system weighs both intent AND consequences. For example someone who hits someone else with their car may get charged with very different crimes depending on if that person lives or dies. Just to put you in the hot seat for a second, would you yourself want to live in a world where I could take out a contract on your life, and doing so would be entirely legal UNLESS they successfully killed you? Effectively allowing me to take out infinite contracts with complete impunity until you were dead?
- matt-attack 11y ago
  > Just to put you in the hot seat for a second, would you yourself want to live in a world where I could take out a contract on your life, and doing so would be entirely legal UNLESS they successfully killed you? Effectively allowing me to take out infinite contracts with complete impunity until you were dead? Yes because presumably the degenerate who actually pulled the trigger would be punished. I believe there's only one guilty man in this scenario, and he's the one who pulled the trigger.
  - mreiland 11y ago
    There's only 1 person guilty of murder in this case, and 1 person guilty of paying for a murder. Those are two separate actions, both of which are illegal.
bashinator 11y ago
I believe if you commission a murder, that's a crime even if the murder is not committed.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> I'm not sure I even believe that the boss who ordered a kill is even guilty of a crime.If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. The second part is incorrect; soliciting murder (or conspiring with another to commit murder; ordering a hit might be either or both depending on specific details) is a crime whether or not the murder actually occurs. If the murder actually occurs as a result of the solicitation/conspiracy, they are guilty of another and more serious crime, on top of the ones they were already guilty of. But they are guilty of a crime even without that. > How can one person's crime be a function of another person's actions. It just doesn't compute. Because in many cases, law is written and operates on the principal that if you take action intended to cause a result, and that does cause that result (whether or not there is an intermediary whose action is necessary), then you are culpable for the legal consequences of intentionally acting to produce that result, since that's exactly what you've done.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

riquito 11y ago
"Death penalty aside"