A Moral Question Involving Homicide

Author: Buddamoose

Posts

Total: 86
Topic's author
#1
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
Lets imagine for purposes of edification there is a married couple. Person 1 in the married couple is quite unhappy with Person 2. So much so that Person 1 hires(pays) Person 3 to kill Person 2. 

Person 3 kills person 2. This plot is uncovered by Law Enforcement and both are arrested. 

Should Person 1 or 3 be charged with homicide[1], or both? Why?

Should Person 1 or 3 receive the more severe punishment? Should their punishment be equal? Why? 

What critiques do you have, if any, with how homicide, and its variations, is classified and prosecuted?(in the US) Why?

If none, what aspects are particularly appealing? Why? 

#2
Earth
Earth's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,087
3
4
8
Earth's avatar
Earth
3
4
8
I wager both get punished equally depending on the prosecutor. Or the court, or maybe a skilled defense attorney could lighten sentences. 
Topic's author
#3
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Earth
What if you were presiding over the case? What sentence would you impose? 🤔
Topic's author
#4
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
For purposes of discussion, lets assume one, as a judge of the case, determines the type of charge, guilt, and type of sentence imposed. 

What would ones ruling be? ⚖🤔

#5
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
Equal guilt, first degree murder for both parties. The murder could not happen without the willing participation of both. Without the hiring, the killing would not happen. Without a willing killer, person A could not do the hiring. The sentence would be whatever the state sentence is for murder 1.
#6
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Buddamoose
What is our goal in this situation? Punishing the guilty? Protecting public safety? Teaching a lesson? Upholding justice?
Topic's author
#7
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
What is our goal?
Idk, you tell me 🤔
Topic's author
#8
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@TwoMan
Equal guilt, first degree murder for both parties. 

This is an interesting take. So lets further explore this. Say person 1 and person 2 plan to kill X. Person 1 does the killing, person 2 does the disposal of body upon picking it up from a designated location. 

Person 2 hasn't killed anyone, has not sufficiently met one of the necessary grounds for homicide(taking of anothers life), much like person 1 in the primary example. 

Is person 2 still guilty of homicide? How can they be when they themselves did not fulfill one of the primary aspects of homicide, that being killing another person? 


#9
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Buddamoose
The only sensible goal I can see would be minimizing the chances of the crime from being repeated. This would promote public health and safety. So let's look at the motives being displayed here.

Person 1 is unhappy in his marriage and decides to hire someone to kill their spouse. Two courses of action present themselves here. One is to either imprison person 1 until they reach advanced enough years that they are unlikely to remarry or remove them permanently from society. Two is to make divorce easier to obtain and carry no stigma so that no one feels so trapped as to kill their spouse rather than simply leave them. Both courses of action are worth persuing.

Person 3 on the other hand has agreed to commit homicide for financial gain. The actual motive for the murder is less important to him than the personal gain he seeks and so we must remove him permanently from society.


This of course is assuming that rehabilitation is unlikely to be effective.

Topic's author
#10
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
So Person 3 would be punished more severely, by virtue of his crime having a different, in your eyes, moreso "heinous", if you will, motive? 

Let's assume, all other things considered, these variables would be applied to the present. Why do you assume *only* person 3 has financial motive? Person 1 could be unhappy over finances 🤔. 

Should motive play as heavy a factor in jurisdiction that it itself becomes the primary factor, as it seems it's being applied, in adjudication of punishments? 


#11
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Buddamoose
The point is not the heinous nature of the crime as that is a subjective judgement. The point is to protect public safety and choosing the least harsh penalty that would insure it.

As for motives that I am unaware of it may change my judgement about the situation as would a history of violence or a reliable method of rehabilitation. These were however not mentioned in the original hypothetical. 
Topic's author
#12
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
The actual motive for the murder is less important to him than the personal gain he seeks 

The point is not the heinous nature of the crime as that is a subjective judgement

The point is to protect public safety and choosing the least harsh penalty that would insure it.

Im not stating agreeance or disagreeance with the above, rather,  I'm a scosh confused how the first isnt an example of the second, and how the first, relates to the last 🤔. 

Finally, regarding the last point. Why is public safety/harm prevention a primary factor in jurisprudence?

Say as a judge you were faced with reviewing a case of an alleged rape. The case was stacked unfairly, and there were multiple instances of evidence being withheld. 

Overturning that should be an easy decision, except... Overruling the decision would consequentially cause a riot and subsequent property damage and violent harm amongst individuals. 

Public Safety as a primary concern would dictate as a judge that you affirm the ruling, no? 🤔
#13
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
Person 1 is completely innocent because person 2 was definitely a while male and was oppressing her through his bigotry and she was just doing her bit to fight the patriarchy. 

imo put both in jail because threat to society is the foremost concern of a murder trial, with justice for the deceased a close second.
Topic's author
#14
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
person 2 was definitely a while male and was oppressing her through his bigotry and she was just doing her bit to fight the patriarchy
Spicy good looks 🔥

Obviously as an oppressor it doesn't make sense to kill who you are oppressing. Who would you oppress at that point? Yourself? 🤔
#15
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
p1 killed p3 using p2 as a weapon.  I'm struggling to see any difference in the level or sort of crime committed by p1 an p3.

Topic's author
#16
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
p1 killed p3 using p2 as a weapon. 
So P3 is a weapon(tool)? Not actually the one committing the killing, rather, P1 is by consequence of ordering it? This would mean equal culpability?

I'm struggling to see any difference in the level or sort of crime committed by p1 an p3.

But you supplied a difference in the directly preceding sentence to this 🤔
#17
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Buddamoose
Both p1 and p3 wanted p2 dead, p1 for personal reasons and p3 for the fee,  so they both have motive.   Also both take deliberate, conscious steps to bring about the death of p2.  I see both as equally culpable and as just as culpable as if they had acted alone.

Have you ever watched 'Strangers on a Train'?   Wiki summarises the plot thus:

"The story concerns two strangers who meet on a train, a young tennis player and a charming psychopath. The psychopath suggests that because they each want to "get rid" of someone, they should "exchange" murders, and that way neither will be caught. The psychopath commits the first murder, then tries to force the tennis player to complete the bargain."



#18
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@Buddamoose
dunno, but I think threat to society is measure that ought to be used here. Obvs P3 is a threat, jail him for life. P1 enables P3 to exist in the first place, so heavy jail term but not as severe as P3, since they don't appear to be capable of killing people themself.
Topic's author
#19
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Smithereens
@keithprosser
Both p1 and p3 wanted p2 dead, p1 for personal reasons and p3 for the fee,  so they both have motive.  
True 🔥
Also both take deliberate, conscious steps to bring about the death of p2. 
Premeditation 😰
I see both as equally culpable and as just as culpable as if they had acted alone.
I don't disagree facially with them being equally culpable. Something just irks me about how that conclusion comes about. Both having motive to kill, both wanting the death to happen, only one actually does the killing. 

This is an interesting area because as Smithereens points out in regards to threat to society at large

P1 enables P3 to exist in the first place, so heavy jail term but not as severe as P3, since they don't appear to be capable of killing people themself.

This being a compelling angle on culpability. That offers good reason fmpov why P1 is, per virtue of likely not being capable of such act themselves, not as culpable. 🤔

No P3, likely no killing of P2. P3 even existing constitutes as evidence to support this likelihood in itself fmpov 🤔
 

That sounds like an interesting movie 🔥.
#20
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Smithereens
When I asked wjat our goal was in this situation you left that up to me. As I said the only sensible goal would be to minimize future murders. I prescribed nearly identical punishments for.both individuals along with social reform regarding devorce. It doesn't so much matter why the crime was committed only how dangerous the defendants are likely to be in the future. Assessing their probable mot8ves is just one way of determining this risk factor. 

If the goal were upholding the laws of some nation or other you had ample opportunity to say so, in fact I asked you clearly.


#21
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
what? 

#22
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Smithereens
I'm not sure what you are asking.
#23
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
did you mean to address it to Budda or myself? :P 

#24
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Smithereens
Damn your right.
#25
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Buddamoose
When I asked what our goal was in this situation you left that up to me. As I said the only sensible goal would be to minimize future murders. I prescribed nearly identical punishments for.both individuals along with social reform regarding devorce. It doesn't so much matter why the crime was committed only how dangerous the defendants are likely to be in the future. Assessing their probable motives is just one way of determining this risk factor. If the goal were upholding the laws of some nation or other you had ample opportunity to say so, in fact I asked you clearly.
#26
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Both are guilty of murder. Both should get the same sentence. 
#27
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
the murder would not have happened had there not been a call to action
this kind of mirrors Dr. Kevorkian and his assisted suicide.
Topic's author
#28
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
When I asked what our goal was in this situation you left that up to me. 
Indeed i did, and my response had nothing to do with laws of any nation or any sort of other law. 

I merely asked for reconciliation of an observed inconsistency. As well as presenting an
an interesting implication if primarily using the supplied metric as a basis for judgement, and why that metric was being used primarily 🤔
Topic's author
#29
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Wouldn't you agree, laws aside, jurisprudence in general ought be rational and consistent, by virtue of being an excercise in the pursuit of Justice? 

I apologize for not saying this forthrightly, but tbh, I figured this could go without being said 
#30
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the murder would not have happened had there not been a call to action. this kind of mirrors Dr. Kevorkian and his assisted suicide.
No it doesn't. Assisted suicide is not murder.