Who takes the blame?

[oppp7]

This question came up after reading about the assassinated Indian leader from decades ago (reading Wikipedia made me realize it's not as related to this topic as I thought), but it's also been in the news lately with the people from Guantanimo being persecuted.

If a leader tells someone to do a crime for them, who takes the blame? The leader for odering the crime, the follower for committing the crime, or both to some degree?

 

[Julianking93]

Both

The leader organized it and the follower committed the crime, neither should go unpunished.

 

[Abedeus]

Uhm. Both.

One for being an idiot, and the other for listening to the idiot.

Also, it's everyone's fault except me.

 

[Trivun]

Both. The leader has no right to order someone to commit a crime, but at the same time the follower has free will and so they could simply choose not to follow the order. If they choose to obey, then they have to take the blame to a degree. But the leader is also in the wrong for ordering someone to commit a crime too.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Both.

If the follower is given the opportunity to take the moral high ground (Quit) and doesn't than both. So unless its gun to the head "press the button", than both

That's international law

 

[wooty]

Depends if the leaders gets caught with issuing the order or not

 

[hermes]

Both

 

[Cherry Cola]

Both.

 

[SmartIdiot]

Think I'll be different and say 'both'. Oh wait...

 

[teisjm]

Both top full degree, unless the "commiter" was forces to do it in some way.

Just like soldiers are murderers IF they kill civilians, whether or not their capain ordered it.

Theres always choice, and just because you don't like the consequence of not doing what you're told, doesn't mean it wasn't your choice, and that you're free of responsibility.

 

[Lullabye]

the person who ordered it. capital punishment for him. then a few hours of watching tree house should take care of the shooter. we can always use another brainwashed worker here in Canada.

 

[NeonV]

Both.

Take Nixon and the Watergate incident as an example, he issued the orders to spy on his democratic counterparts and was indeed caught but before he could be punished (through what would have been impeachment I assume) he resigned. Both him and the political spies got the blame because he issued the order and they carried out the act.

 

[Proteus214]

It should be the leader's fault. In some cases you could say that both are culpable, but 9 times out of 10, the follower doesn't have much of a choice in the matter. A lot of times you hear about this kind of thing in the military. If you don't follow orders or you question your orders, you're screwed. If it's your job to do nothing but follow orders, then the people making the decisions are to blame, not you.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Both. The leader is accountable for giving such an order, but the follower has choice on whether or not to actually follow those orders esp. if he/she knows what he/she's been ordered to do is wrong.
That's why I never buy the old "just following orders" excuse either. It's like, what are you? A robot? You have a mind of your own, THINK!