"Intent" and Responsibility: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » "Intent" and Responsibility » "Intent" and Responsibility

"Intent" and Responsibility
Paladin Publishing to blame

"Intent" and Responsibility

Valens
tyrannous

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 07, 2004
Location: Existence
Total Topics: 42
Total Posts: 1071

Posted 08/17/06 - 04:02 PM:	#1
In 1993 James Perry allegedly used a “how-to” book entitled Hitman as his guide in committing three murders. The book, titled “A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors”, gives some (little) advice on how to be a “contract killer”, though it’s hardly as much as one could learn reading a Tom Clancy novel. It was written by a Florida homemaker who’s identity has been protected. Paladin Publishing was sued by the victim’s family and eventually settled for several million dollars, and was also demanded to destroy all remaining copies of the book. This is an outrageous miscarriage of justice and a dangerous precedence, that a publisher and an author can be held responsible for the actions of those who read their books. Whether or not Hitman was an instructional guide for murder (tongue-in-cheek) or incited violence is inconsequential; the accountability lies solely with the reader, and intent of the publishers cannot rationally be admissible. I could expand on this further, with the right for free speech, or the fact that James Perry didn’t even follow the book’s advice, but I’ll come back to that later. My specific example aside, I want to develop the topic to addressing the nature of ‘responsibility’. Thoughts? Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man:_A_Technical... http://reason.com/9908/fe.dk.the.shtml
Now let it work! Mischief, thou art afoot, take thou what course thou wilt! -how now, fellow? Marc Antony (Shakespeare's Julius Caesar) "Some people are pragmatists, taking things as they come and making the best of the choices available. Some people are idealists, standing for principle and refusing to compromise. And some people just act on any whim that enters their heads. I pragmatically turn my whims into principles!" Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes)

Petersean
Duellist at Law

Usergroup: Missing Mods
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Location: Fresno, California
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 576

Posted 08/18/06 - 01:55 PM:	#2
I've briefly taken a look at the 4th Circuit decision in Rice v. Paladin and it is a pretty convolued opinion. I'm not sure I agree with the opinion, but I think I understand how the court got where it got. First, the decision reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the publisher. The standard for granting summary judgment is that there is no "triable issue of fact" in the case; in other words, there is no conflicting evidence on material questions raised by the pleading. Apparently, the court felt that there was a conflict in the evidence about the intent of the publisher and author in marketing the book; namely, did the publisher/author "intend" to aid or abet the crime. I'm not familiar with the "general intentional" tort that apparently exists in Maryland law, but the it seems that the "intent" is not to accomplish the specific end of the conspiracy - which is the standard in California for civil conspiracies - but something more nebulous. Here's the relevant language: Maryland's highest court has held that a defendant may be liable in tort if he "by any means (words, signs, or motions) encourages, incites, aids or abets the act of the direct perpetrator of the tort." Alleco Inc. v. Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, 340 Md. 176, 665 A.2d 1038, 1049 (1995) (quoting Duke v. Feldman, 245 Md. 454, 226 A.2d 345, 347 (1967)). It further appears that generally Maryland defines the tort of aiding and abetting in the same way that it defines the crime of aiding and abetting. The state defines "aider" as one who "assists, supports or supplements the efforts of another," and defines "abettor" as "one who instigates, advises or encourages the commission of a crime." Anello v. State, 201 Md. 164, 93 A.2d 71, 72-73 (Md. 1952). The Court of Appeals has explained that in order for a conviction to stand, "it is not essential that there be a prearranged concert of action, although, in the absence of such action, it is essential that [the defendant] should in some way advocate or encourage the commission of the crime." Id. And, recently, the court has reiterated that criminal aiding and abetting "may be predicated upon counseling or encouraging" a criminal act, even if there is no agreement between the principal and the aider or abettor, and also that "it is well settled that aiding and abetting does not always require a conspiracy." Apostoledes v. State, 323 Md. 456, 593 A.2d 1117, 1121 (1991). So, if it appears that there may be evidence that the defendant advocated or encouraged the commission of the crime, then the defendant can be liable in tort for the civil damages associated wth the crime. Given the book's dead pan advocacy of the joys of contract killing, the court felt is should be up to a jury to conclude that the publisher was advocating that people solve their problems with contract murders. I think the more problematic area is "causation." Obviously, not everyone goes out and does what other people suggest, particularly when it involves murder, which would seem to make break the proximate causal chain between book and murder, but, apparently, that issue would likewise be left up to the jury. The problem is that facing a jury is frightening thing for a defendant who is writing books advocating murder. The defendant probably would have won, but if they didn't, the damage awared could have been far higher than what they settled for. As for the First Amendment issue, it is simply not the case that every speech act is constitutionally protected. Many crimes - bribery, extortion, inciting murder - are pure speech acts and the First Amendment does not extend to speech acts that are crimes. Me, personally, I think this one is a stretch; I think the policy against censorhips ought to require a higher standard for causation and intent. But I'm not wearing black and I can understand where the court is coming from. But how do you feel about the Nuremberg File case - here is an overview but I don't vouch that it is neutral. The Nuremberg File website would show pictures of abortion doctors over which it superimposed a red "X" over those doctors who had been murdered. The site did not make any explicit threat or explicitly advocate that abortion doctors be murdered. The website could have been a species of political speech, albeit a noxious bit of political speech at best. There was no link between the Nuremberg File and any act of violence against any abortion provider. Nonetheless, the 9th Circuit rejected a First Amendment claim and upheld a damage award and injunctive relief under an abortion access law. The gist of the decision was that the testimony of doctors who felt threatened trumped the First Amendment claim, which comes close to making First Amendment protection turn on the understanding of the listener and not the intent of the speaker. So, do anti-abortion zealots have the same rights under the First Amendment that publishers of "How to murder" books? If not, why not?
"I begin by taking. I shall find scholars afterwards to demonstrate my perfect right." - Frederick the Great

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1965

Posted 08/18/06 - 04:05 PM:	#3
That same argument could hold liable any gun manufacturer who paid movie companies to place their guns in the hands of depraved killers. The movie "Natural Born Killers" comes to mind.

Petersean
Duellist at Law

Usergroup: Missing Mods
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Location: Fresno, California
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 576

Posted 08/20/06 - 08:31 AM:	#4
unrealist42 wrote: That same argument could hold liable any gun manufacturer who paid movie companies to place their guns in the hands of depraved killers. The movie "Natural Born Killers" comes to mind. I am not sure that any gun company has ever encouraged the use of its product in illegal activities. I think that their public position is that their product are to be used for lawful purposes, albeit things like coatings that are resistant to finger prints have been used as ways to try to hook gun companies into product liability cases for criminal activities. Perhaps the Paladin Publishing case strengthens that argument. (My partner did "Smith and Wesson" cases in the 80s, but I really don't know what they were about; someone got shot when they weren't supposed to, I would imagine.) Likewise, while Natural Born Killers exalted, I've heard - because I haven't seen the movie - senseless violence, I don't think it said to anyone that the anti-heroes should imitated. Didn't they get killed in the end? If so, that would be some indication that the intent of the movie was not to encourage senseless criminal violence; getting killed normally being considered a "bad" lifestyle option. I think the problem with the "Do Itself Murder" book is the same problem I've had on these forums: people have confused my ironic statements with serious positions. To me, a "Do it yourself murder" book just sounds like deep, dark humor - which may distinguish the "Nuremberg Files" case, which in no way is funny on any possible level - particularly if the book is written in a dead-pan, clinical tone of voice. Unfortunately, in the case of "Contract Killer", the very seriousness of the tone, which accentuates the off-beat humor, can be used to infer the seriousness of the intent, and - voila - you have evidence that a jury can infer shows an intent to encourage or abet a murder, which still strikes me as a real leap with respect to proximate causation.
"I begin by taking. I shall find scholars afterwards to demonstrate my perfect right." - Frederick the Great

exile
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 08/21/06 - 02:58 AM:	#5
How could you tell the difference between a "genuine" manual written for contract killers with the intent of assisting them to murder people, and an "ironic" one containing the same information but with a humorous or satirical intent?

Petersean
Duellist at Law

Usergroup: Missing Mods
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Location: Fresno, California
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 576

Posted 08/21/06 - 05:45 AM:	#6
exile wrote: How could you tell the difference between a "genuine" manual written for contract killers with the intent of assisting them to murder people, and an "ironic" one containing the same information but with a humorous or satirical intent? That's a fair question, which is probably why the Fourth Circuit decided this was a "triable issue of fact" for the jury, rather than something that could be determined as a matter of law. Nonetheless, were I magically empaneled on the jury, I think I would look at the fact that this "manual" was published to the general public, which I would think would not be typical of criminal enterprises, which I understand from a lifetime of watching movies and documentaries is not typical of criminal activity, which is generally conspiratorial and secret. So, I probably would think that there is something absurd about a published "how to" manual on contract killing, and absurdity is the essence of irony. Other jurors might disagree. Your point suggests why the publisher settled by paying money and destroying the book. So, do you think, then, that the Rice v. Paladin decision was correctly decided?
"I begin by taking. I shall find scholars afterwards to demonstrate my perfect right." - Frederick the Great

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1634

Posted 08/22/06 - 09:57 PM:	#7
Valens wrote: the accountability lies solely with the reader, and intent of the publishers cannot rationally be admissible. I could expand on this further, with the right for free speech, or the fact that James Perry didn’t even follow the book’s advice, but I’ll come back to that later. My specific example aside, I want to develop the topic to addressing the nature of ‘responsibility’. Thoughts? A good topic, similar to the ongoing battle between food consumers and restaurants/fastfoods. "I did not put an AKA 47 to your head so you supersize a Mcdonald's meal!!!" Anyway, with deference to Petersean, as he presented a very good argument, I will dwell on the non-legal perspective and say that "responsibility" is not dictated by legalities, though they coincide, rather, by ethics -- specifically the choices we make that affect our action. It is almost correct to say that the author of the book was taking an "artistic license" when he or she wrote it. Artistic license, in this case, would be -- though the author knew that there might be some who would take his words seriously, or would be inspired by the book to commit a crime, the book was written primarily to "normal" readers who understood the reality of committing a crime, and the book being for entertainment purposes only. That's as far as the author's responsibility goes. Anything that a reader does, because the reader is inspired by the book, would be an individual responsibility. By "individual" is meant, of course, normal individual. It can be argued and even proven that James Perry was not the "normal" reader. Rather, a psychopath and a violent anti-social waiting to happen.

Thoughtless
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2005
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 635

Posted 09/03/06 - 09:57 PM:	#8
I think that the error in the court's reasoning is the failure to distinguish between the general and the particular: a defendant may be liable in tort if he "by any means (words, signs, or motions) encourages, incites, aids or abets the act of the direct perpetrator of the tort." It does not follow that by giving general instructions on how to kill a person one is encouraging, inciting, aiding, or abetting any particular killer. It is highly unlikely that either the publisher or the author had any particular potential killer in mind. And, as evidenced by the fact that only two of the twenty thousand individuals who bought copies of the book ended up commiting murder, no case can be made that publishing the book constituted a speech act which rendered any particular crime or crimes "imminent".
You down with OPP(Original Poster's Prerogative)?

exile
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 09/04/06 - 03:28 AM:	#9
This is related to the idea of "hate speech". If I stand up in Main Street and make a speech calling for the upstanding white protestant citizens of the town to murder all Catholics, Jews and Muslims, am I culpable if someone acts on it? Or - if no-one does, have I committed a crime? And if there is a difference - why? I have uttered the same words in both cases. Does it make any difference if I say in court that I was doing this as a piece of performance art which was not meant to be taken seriously. Or if in court I say that I very much meant what I said.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.