5 ms·

Once you've hired a hitman, the outcome is basically out of your control. Is there an argument where someone had hired a hitman with the intent they're unsucces

Once you've hired a hitman, the outcome is basically out of your control. Is there an argument where someone had hired a hitman with the intent they're unsuccessful? That seems far fetched to me. I can buy your argument if they had intended to commit the murder themselves, because they can change their mind at any point up to actually doing it. Similar situations to the hitman exist, too: planting a bomb, poisoning food, etc. Just because they're a bad bomb maker, or the poison wasn't potent enough, or the target doesn't drive/eat the food/etc doesn't change that they clearly intended to kill someone. To be clear, I draw a distinct line between possessing a bomb and actually planting it in someone's car - the former might be still be a crime but is clearly not the same severity as actually killing someone, whereas the actions the perpetrator took in the latter are indistinguishable, regardless of outcome.

gist 7y ago
> Once you've hired a hitman, the outcome is basically out of your control. And what happens if you hire a hitman and by accident he kills 20 people instead of 1 person? [1] [1] Say some poison or even he just goes berzerk with the gun or weapon.
- glofish 7y ago
  Imagine you hire someone to mow your lawn, they accidentally destroy the neighbors' lawn, run over their dog, then set their house on fire. Also, they were drunk and on the way home from the job drove into a crowd of people. Should you be responsible?
  - QuinnWilton 7y ago
    These aren't comparable examples. If you hire a hitman, there's a reasonable expectation that people will die. No such expectation exists for hiring someone to mow your lawn.
    - gruez 7y ago
      There's a reasonable expectation that the victim will die, but not anyone else. I guess you can argue that there might be a risk of collateral damage, but there's also a risk of collateral damage in hiring contractors for your house (eg. the plumber starting a gas leak resulting you and your neighbor's house getting blown up).
    - glofish 7y ago
      This is about intent and responsibility. Under what circumstances is one responsible for someone else's acts. Just because you hire someone to do something illegal, you are not responsible for all the illegal acts the other person might commit. The mere fact of putting something in motion does not immediately mean one is responsible for all the outcomes of all actions in the chain.
stickfigure 7y ago
Most legal systems seem to apply some variation of the "no harm, no foul" rule. Or at least "less foul". It also applies if you shoot and miss, or the bomb goes off at the wrong time, or if you get lost on the way to the assassination. It seems to make sense? I mean, it's not like someone is getting off scott free. But at least there isn't a body, and that should count for something. Attempted murder is overall less bad than actual murder.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  Maybe this makes sense if you think of the punishment as having a deterrent component and a retributive component. Someone who attempts a crime but fails needs to be deterred from future crime, but does not owe the same magnitude of retributive debt to society. I'll note that despite the above I'd probably prefer a justice system that focuses on deterrence and rehabilitation, and omits retribution.
  - Jeff_Brown 7y ago
    +1. There's no material societal benefit in retribution. (True, it makes some people feel good, but so does burning a cross in someone's yard.) The purpose of a justice system is to keep us safe. Someone who hires a hitman should be punished, so that future people don't do it. Whether they succeed is irrelevant. A counterargument I can imagine is that if we punish the unsuccessful hiring of a hitman more lightly, then future hirers are more likely to err on the side of a hitman with a lower probability of success. But that seems improbable to me -- one doesn't hire a hitman to see them fail.
    - oefrha 7y ago
      > The purpose of a justice system is to keep us safe. Someone who hires a hitman should be punished, so that future people don't do it. Whether they succeed is irrelevant. One small step further: someone who plans to hire a hitman should be punished, so that future people don't even think about it. Whether they manage to hire one is irrelevant. Now you're punishing a thought crime and equating that with successful murder even.

gist 7y ago

> Once you've hired a hitman, the outcome is basically out of your control. And what happens if you hire a hitman and by accident he kills 20 people instead of 1 person? [1] [1] Say some poison or even he just goes berzerk with the gun or weapon.

glofish 7y ago
Imagine you hire someone to mow your lawn, they accidentally destroy the neighbors' lawn, run over their dog, then set their house on fire. Also, they were drunk and on the way home from the job drove into a crowd of people. Should you be responsible?
- QuinnWilton 7y ago
  These aren't comparable examples. If you hire a hitman, there's a reasonable expectation that people will die. No such expectation exists for hiring someone to mow your lawn.
  - gruez 7y ago
    There's a reasonable expectation that the victim will die, but not anyone else. I guess you can argue that there might be a risk of collateral damage, but there's also a risk of collateral damage in hiring contractors for your house (eg. the plumber starting a gas leak resulting you and your neighbor's house getting blown up).
  - glofish 7y ago
    This is about intent and responsibility. Under what circumstances is one responsible for someone else's acts. Just because you hire someone to do something illegal, you are not responsible for all the illegal acts the other person might commit. The mere fact of putting something in motion does not immediately mean one is responsible for all the outcomes of all actions in the chain.

stickfigure 7y ago

Most legal systems seem to apply some variation of the "no harm, no foul" rule. Or at least "less foul". It also applies if you shoot and miss, or the bomb goes off at the wrong time, or if you get lost on the way to the assassination. It seems to make sense? I mean, it's not like someone is getting off scott free. But at least there isn't a body, and that should count for something. Attempted murder is overall less bad than actual murder.

nitrogen 7y ago
Maybe this makes sense if you think of the punishment as having a deterrent component and a retributive component. Someone who attempts a crime but fails needs to be deterred from future crime, but does not owe the same magnitude of retributive debt to society. I'll note that despite the above I'd probably prefer a justice system that focuses on deterrence and rehabilitation, and omits retribution.
- Jeff_Brown 7y ago
  +1. There's no material societal benefit in retribution. (True, it makes some people feel good, but so does burning a cross in someone's yard.) The purpose of a justice system is to keep us safe. Someone who hires a hitman should be punished, so that future people don't do it. Whether they succeed is irrelevant. A counterargument I can imagine is that if we punish the unsuccessful hiring of a hitman more lightly, then future hirers are more likely to err on the side of a hitman with a lower probability of success. But that seems improbable to me -- one doesn't hire a hitman to see them fail.
  - oefrha 7y ago
    > The purpose of a justice system is to keep us safe. Someone who hires a hitman should be punished, so that future people don't do it. Whether they succeed is irrelevant. One small step further: someone who plans to hire a hitman should be punished, so that future people don't even think about it. Whether they manage to hire one is irrelevant. Now you're punishing a thought crime and equating that with successful murder even.