Thug Dilemma

[Dre89]

X hires Y to rough up Z. Y however, overdoes it and ends up accidently killing Z. Now, supposing it can be proven that X only ordered Y to rough up Z, and didn't want Z killed, how should X be charged?

 

[_Keno_]

Whoops, I had to relogin to submit my post, and didnt realize you made two dilemma threads. D=

 

[Sucumbio]

you going to law school now, Dre.? lol

anyway, the answer is: X will get charged with Conspiracy to commit Murder (25-life) and plead down to Criminal Conspiracy (5-15). Y will get charged with 2nd degree murder (25-life) and plead down to criminally negligent homicide (5-15). *gavel sound from Law and Order*

No, I dunno, there's many ways prosecution could go about this, but normally they'll go for the heavier charge, and plead down. But if you're asking in terms of morality of law, then the answer is X is guilty by association. Even if he didn't intend for Y to kill Z, Y did kill Z, so X is as much to blame as Y.

 

[Dre89]

But X didn't conspire to commit murder.

It seems justifiable to charge X with conspiracy to murder because X has a high level of criminal intent. But what if X just orders Y to follow Z around, and Y ends up killing Z?

 

[StealthyGunnar]

Then X shouldn't be charged with conspiracy for murder, because it was not his intention.

 

[Sucumbio]

Well that's why you start out at the top and plead down. It'd be very hard for the defense to prove that X wasn't intending Z to die, and the prosecution knows this. Unless of course there's some ridiculous evidence, and this is a case of total misunderstanding, but you see the premise was X wanted Z "roughed up" so ... if Z dies as a result of the beating, then it still goes back to X initiated things, and so they're culpable. The fact that murder wasn't the intention is why the plea bargain will be accepted, but X will still go to jail, and this way the prosecution doesn't risk X getting off on a misdemeanor.

 

[Lord Chair]

Derpyherp US law.

Studying Dutch law myself, I don't see how this discussion is Debate Hall worthy. In a black-and-white casus like this there should be little room for debate.

edit: my legal English is garbage so I won't bother trying to translate how Dutch law would handle it.

 

[Dre89]

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?

 

[Lord Chair]

Sure you can debate it from a philosophical perspective, but that's not what's happening

 

[Dre89]

Well the question was 'should they get charged' not 'would they get charged'.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

Well the question was 'should they get charged' not 'would they get charged'.

I may be doin' it wrong, but I thought you had to have intent to kill someone in order to be charged with murder..

Since the first guy had no intentions of killing him, I'd say the blame is on the man who killed.

 

[Dre89]

The killer is getting charged too obviously, the question is to what degree is the employer guilty.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

The killer is getting charged too obviously, the question is to what degree is the employer guilty.

I do not think the employer should be charged with the same thing as the killer.

I mean, he obviously didn't commit murder, and he had no intentions of committing murder. I sound like a broken record, I know.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Well the question was 'should they get charged' not 'would they get charged'.

I think most people would say that it's morally impermissible to kill someone in cold blood. This is essentially what person Y did to person Z, under orders from person X to "rough up" person Z. Given that there is evidence which proves person X did not directly order / hire to kill, person X should be charged, but not to the degree or extent of which person Y should be charged.

I don't study law, so I don't know about the various charges, but it shouldn't be the same as person Y. Person X did not order person Y to kill, so their sentences / charges should be different. That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Strife]

X hires Y to rough up Z. Y however, overdoes it and ends up accidently killing Z. Now, supposing it can be proven that X only ordered Y to rough up Z, and didn't want Z killed, how should X be charged?

If I have a gun and I shoot someone without intending to kill them but I did, I should still be charged with murder. The same thing applies in your scenario. However I would argue that intent should factor into sentencing. And someone who did kill someone else accidentally should be sentenced less severely than someone who did intent to kill someone.

 

[1048576]

Y should have all his personhood rights taken away forever for being anencephalic and X should be enslaved until he's paid off the value of Z's life. wtf is intent?

If Y has a brain, then split the slave labor based on how much autonomy Y is judged to have.

 

[Orboknown]

X hires Y to rough up Z. Y however, overdoes it and ends up accidently killing Z. Now, supposing it can be proven that X only ordered Y to rough up Z, and didn't want Z killed, how should X be charged?

X should be charged with intent to assault,or the legal equivalent.

If I have a gun and I shoot someone without intending to kill them but I did, I should still be charged with murder.

But X wasnt the one shooting the gun.

The same thing applies in your scenario. However I would argue that intent should factor into sentencing.

I agree here.

And someone who did kill someone else accidentally should be sentenced less severely than someone who did intent to kill someone.

This is also true.But we aren't sentencing Y the murdering, we are sentencing X the one who hired Y to "rough up" Z.