Quote:
Originally Posted by canjowolf
The Situation:
a) Person A wants person B to die.
b) Person A knows about the affair and believes that person C will kill person B if they find out.
c) Person A brings proof of the affair to person C.
|
This is cut and dried.
Intent --> Action --> if the result is murder, then Person A colluded in the murder.
The discussion is muddied by the other actors, which is why I removed them. Person A wanted Person B dead, and took actions to secure that result. Person A may have thought s/he was being subtle and obfuscatory about it, but it's conspiracy to commit murder.
It may be hard to prove, but it's highly likely in any real-world, non-hypothetical situation that there would be a trail of actions and comments that could be traced back to Person A once the initial clue (that Person A told Person C about the affair and how that conversation -- as well as any subsequent ones -- went) was discovered, including motive for colluding in a murder.
If you don't agree, compare and contrast the above to this:
Quote:
a) Person A wants person B to die.
b) Person A knows an muderer-for-hire and believes that person C will kill person B if paid enough.
c) Person A brings money to person C.
|
How are these qualitatively different, aside from the relative certitude that a murder will actually occur? Depending on who Person C is, the outcome might be as certain as paying a murderer-for-hire to do the job.
Person A certainly thinks so; otherwise, it's a waste of time for achieving the premise of the Situation: a) Person A wants person B to die.