> I'm not sure I even believe that the boss who ordered a kill is even guilty of a crime.If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed.
The second part is incorrect; soliciting murder (or conspiring with another to commit murder; ordering a hit might be either or both depending on specific details) is a crime whether or not the murder actually occurs.
If the murder actually occurs as a result of the solicitation/conspiracy, they are guilty of another and more serious crime, on top of the ones they were already guilty of. But they are guilty of a crime even without that.
> How can one person's crime be a function of another person's actions. It just doesn't compute.
Because in many cases, law is written and operates on the principal that if you take action intended to cause a result, and that does cause that result (whether or not there is an intermediary whose action is necessary), then you are culpable for the legal consequences of intentionally acting to produce that result, since that's exactly what you've done.