In a murder to hire case who’s more important to prosecute?

[Anonymous]

I’m watching this true crime documentary on A&E and thought to myself who is more important or viewed as more important to find guilty in the court of law the killer? Or is it the guy who planned the hit?

[NaultD]

The whole point of lady justice statue being blindfolded it's supposed to be impartial and independent. You are ultimately comparing apples to oranges between these two different crimes.

This is why jury of peers is so important as the foundation of what is or isn't right.

Let's say hypothetically your spouse beats the living shit out of you leaves you and you got a hold of a friend of a friend. "I'll pay you to make it stop." What does that mean? You can see how many different directions that can go.

It could even be a crime of passion or desperation. To a stranger I'll give you jewelry to stop that person. Extended line with a phone longer tentative emergency. It's not unheard of people using pizza delivery as a disguise an emergency call to 911. It wasn't the smarter choice to call your friend that could help but was it on a community basis abhorrent wrong?

To say anything on the face Hollywood level of your question. The facts speak for themselves and if it was that open and shut case it would just be an open and shut case. You still have to practice law at the highest standards on every case no matter how obvious everything is.

[DrPepper12]

From a strict efficiency point of view, get the hitman. The person who paid for the hit is a one-and-done whereas people who will pay for further hits from the hitman are more likely to end in more murders and hence that's the greater evil to be prevented.

[AviatorTom]

It's easier to prosecute the killer, but the person who hired the killer is more dangerous to society. Get them in jail.

[DryGermanGuy]

Here they usually receive the same or very similar sentences.

[exitseven]

I would want the person that hired the hit man to be prosecuted more.

[msc545]

Both