Thug Dilema (debate hall version)

[adumbrodeus]

Since I can't post in the the proving grounds (*rages at how Dre. is allowed back there and not me, and it's all some conspiracy to discredit theists and corrupt our precious bodily fluids*) and there is no longer any debate allowed in the social thread, even though this is technically an answer which should end the discussion I'll post it as a separate thread.

How is there nothing to debate?

Someone is getting charged for conspiring to something that they did not actually conspire to. How is that not controversial?

Here's the thing, the definition of conspiracy to commit murder isn't actually "conspiring to commit a particular murder or murders" it's essentially "conspiracy to commit something which is legally murder".

What's the difference? Well, to be murder you have to have "malice aforethought" in other words, you either have to be planning to murder somebody or your actions have to be taken in grossly negligent disregard for human life. For example, planning to shoot somebody in the back of the head and throwing an anvil into a large crowd off a 30 story building have the same amount of malice aforethought.


So how does this apply to this case? Well, legally speaking because he is attempting to "rough him up" by proxy which intends to cause physical harm, I'm almost positive there's malice aforethought present here due to gross disregard for human life. So conspiracy to commit an action with malice aforethought and somebody dies because of it it's definitely murder. Depending on the degree of the beating, it could even be conspiracy to commit murder under the same standards if he survived.


Now, this is assuming a harsh enough beating that malice aforethought would be present. The conspiracy probably has malice aforethought unless some pretty strict limits were set, but the malice aforethought in the beater would be determined by the severity of the beating.




Granted, I can't speak on other countries, but at least as far as US law is concerned whether or not something is conspiracy to commit murder is dependent on whether there is malice aforethought present, just like in actual murder. Since conspiracy does not depend on an actual death, this is regardless of whether or not somebody actually dies.

 

[Dre89]

Lol conspiracy to discredit theists? Are you saying I'm not a theist, or I discredit them by being one?

As for your argument, to me that only works if the order was specific about the malice intended, but not the outcome. For example, if the order was 'crack him three times over the head with a bat', which is highly malicious, and even if not intended to kill the victim, could still very well do so. Maybe I'd concede the point on that one.

If however, the intended consequence is made clear, for example 'take his legs out with a bat but make sure he doesn't die' here the intention is to not kill him, and the malice is structured in such a way to prevent the possibility of the victim dying, if the orders are carried out correctly. That to me shouldn't be conspiracy to murder.

To me, it starts becoming very vague when the employer is guilty. What if he says to his hitman 'I wanna f*** that guy up' and then the hitman does so? It just seems extremely vague to me.

 

[AltF4]

You can't protect yourself from murder charges simply by sprinkling the words "but don't kill him" at the end of your hit order. (In case the FBI is listening) When you order violence upon another person, you know full and well what might end up happening if it goes too far. You are responsible for everything that happens to the victim as if you had done it yourself.

 

[Dre89]

But if the order is to take out the legs and to keep him alive, not only is he intending to keep him alive, but the nature of the order is such that it can't kill him if it is carried out properly.

I don't see how that's in the same league as ordering him to shoot the victim in the head.

 

[AltF4]

Well it is in the same league. For the same reason that when a group of people all get together and rob a bank, even the driver of the getaway car is charged equally with the crime. If one of the bank robbers killed a man in the process, everyone involved (even the driver) gets charged with murder. Even if they specifically agreed to "no killing anyone" beforehand.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Lol conspiracy to discredit theists? Are you saying I'm not a theist, or I discredit them by being one?

Joking obviously, but the latter.

As for your argument, to me that only works if the order was specific about the malice intended, but not the outcome. For example, if the order was 'crack him three times over the head with a bat', which is highly malicious, and even if not intended to kill the victim, could still very well do so. Maybe I'd concede the point on that one.

If however, the intended consequence is made clear, for example 'take his legs out with a bat but make sure he doesn't die' here the intention is to not kill him, and the malice is structured in such a way to prevent the possibility of the victim dying, if the orders are carried out correctly. That to me shouldn't be conspiracy to murder.

To me, it starts becoming very vague when the employer is guilty. What if he says to his hitman 'I wanna f*** that guy up' and then the hitman does so? It just seems extremely vague to me.

Which again, is where the difference in malice aforethought comes in. As I noted before, if he structured it in a way that had gross negligence for human life (in other words, leaving it open enough that it could easily lead to death) then it's malice aforethought.


The objectives and intended effects aren't really relevant here, the main issues are methodology and limitations on actions.

Saying "no killing" and giving the objective of breaking the legs leaves way too much in the in-between for the conspiracy to not include malice aforethought.



I guess as an example of when it would not be murder if it degraded to that, you tell somebody to "just shoot him with a rudder band" (yes, ridiculous example, definitely more of the prank category then intended violence but technically battery). There's no way that you could predict that it would degrade into deadly violence.