I might hate one more than the other, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't completely absolve the guy who consciously took the contract and actually pulled the trigger.
I MIGHT forgive and all, if they were under duress, like if someone held a gun to their daughter's head until they killed my relative, but that doesn't seem to be what Mark's story tells us, innit?
And yes, actually one of my relatives was probably murdered, though it was never solved. So it does hit close to home, and not just as a theoretical exercise. If I were to learn that someone paid a hit on my relative (though realistically it seems improbable), I'm pretty sure I wouldn't think that, hey, the actual murderer was just doing it for the money, he totally isn't to blame. If he chose to take an innocent life for money, then yes, that is blame enough for me. I would NOT think that that absolves him of all guilt, and I'd be actually pretty unrepentant about not absolving him.
ETA: And I have no problem with applying that to Pilate's guards too. Although they didn't get such a choice about whether Jesus should die or not. But one of the things that was explicitly established at Nuremberg was that "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse. If you choose to obey murderous orders, you do share in the responsibility. But again, that wouldn't apply to Pilate anyway. The Jewish religious leadership was in no position to give him orders, and obeying orders from them was just not in his job description. Period. Regardless of what you think of the Nuremberg ruling, Pilate wouldn't even get to apply for that denied exemption in the first place.