-8

Consider the starting time is the time when law and legal systems were being formed. The only difference I am trying to induce is the law itself which is stated as: If a person is found guilty of a murder and in state records it is his/her first murder, there will no legal implication. Except that the justice systems are the mostly the same as current. If you try to commit murder and you fail, you will be trialed normally for an attempted murder. State will prevent you from committing any murder even if it is your first, its only after you found guilty then it is checked if it was your first murder or not.

To narrow down the scope of "differently", just consider the following aspects

  • Social relations of people with each other
  • Most rewarding jobs and Any new jobs
  • Impacts on gender equilibrium
  • Which form of government would have prevailed OR any new form of government would have evolved
Kashan Danish
  • 15
  • 1
  • 2
    Most people don't commit murder not because of the risk of getting caught but because of an aversion to killing. So this would simply give a one-time free pass to people who'd murder anyway. It'd also mean that murderers would stick around to ensure the victim was dead. – Steve Bird Sep 04 '15 at 10:12
  • Seems similar to this question: http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/19399/what-if-everyone-has-a-gun-and-you-can-shoot-whoever-you-want-but-you-only-eve – zeta Sep 04 '15 at 11:32
  • 1
    @sumelic yes, but I wouldn't advertise it. That other question is so outrageously senseless that puts this whole site to shame. This one is quite bad, mind, but the other one is another order of magnitude. (but yes, they are similar) – o0'. Sep 04 '15 at 13:10
  • @Lohoris easy on the judgement, if you don't like something use your down vote. Questions are welcome even if everyone doesn't like them. – James Sep 04 '15 at 13:56
  • 1
    @James absolutely not. Crap questions ruin a site, and if they are too much, people would stop using the site, killing it. – o0'. Sep 04 '15 at 14:18
  • @Lohoris removing bad questions is what close votes and flags are for. Please keep your opinions polite or do not share them. – James Sep 04 '15 at 18:07
  • The Purge much? Can we get a free lifetime murder of this question, too? –  Oct 28 '15 at 21:46

2 Answers2

5

It would instantly revert to normal

This "law" makes no sense, so either you find a very plausible reason for why this happens and is accepted by the general population, or the minute after anyone votes for this law, he would instantly be deposed as patently insane and the "law" would be repealed.

Stupid thing exists, what happens next?

This kind of question is never a good question.

It can't be answered since if the premise is stupid to begin with, you can't answer using logic, so the answer can as well be random.

Ok, be random

Everyone would suddenly turn into a gummy bear.

It makes no sense, but so does the question.

Sorry to be harsh, but this is exactly the kind of question which risks ruining this site, and IMAO they should be shot dead ASAP, before the have any chance to proliferate.

o0'.
  • 2,106
  • 1
  • 15
  • 18
  • 2
    Downoted. There are a lot of strange societies on Earth, and far more strange ones in books thant humans wrote. Why not a society where one murder per person is allowed ? If you have no answer to give, don't. – Tyrabel Sep 04 '15 at 11:04
  • 5
    @Tyrabel I do have an answer, and it is "it would just revert". Any strange society that actually exists, HAS A REASON why it is so. If we don't know that reason, we can't answer. – o0'. Sep 04 '15 at 11:06
  • @Lohoris say the ruling class made the rule to murder opponents legally and after some revolution about upper class having more privileges, they had to make it general. Would that be good enough? – Kashan Danish Sep 04 '15 at 11:14
  • 1
    @Lohoris I agree that many of these 'what-if' questions can only very tenuously be described as being related to world-building. – rumguff Sep 04 '15 at 11:47
  • @KashanDanish step 1: kill (legally, lol) all the idiots who approved that, step 2: undo that idiocy. Really, it just doesn't work. People don't want to die, so murder is illegal, end of discussion. You must find something EXTREMELY convincing to do otherwise. – o0'. Sep 04 '15 at 13:12
  • 2
    I agree with @Lohoris. This sort of question is inherently ill defined, because they miss out the critical question of why and how this societal change takes place and endures. And the implications of this background is often more significant than the change itself. To answer the question, you basically have to psychoanalyse an insane society, and how are people supposed to do that given that no such madness has previously existed? – Fhnuzoag Sep 04 '15 at 14:05
  • It might not be instantly repealed if there was strong political pressure and it was "our constitutional right" and so on... – komodosp Sep 21 '15 at 07:10
  • @colmde and why such an insane thing would be "our costitutional right" in the first place? – o0'. Sep 21 '15 at 08:16
  • @Lohoris that could be a question in itself. But instead of trying to imagine such a law introduced into our society, which would be insane, how about a completely lawless and barbaric society, with no justice system, where people just killed each other when they felt it was their right (possibly helped by strange religious beliefs about death, e.g. they think are submitting their victim to God's justice, and God will reincarnate them if they are innocent), but then slowly civilised itself over time... This may be one of the remnants of times gone by. – komodosp Sep 21 '15 at 10:16
  • @colmde nope, since it doesn't make sense. Either they get rid of murders completely, or they still allow "under specific circumstances". The "once in a lifetime" makes zero sense in any context. – o0'. Sep 21 '15 at 10:26
  • A gummy bear... –  Oct 28 '15 at 21:47
5

I don't think anyone would use it unless they are in a desperate situation which could as easily be resolved by a well-thought-out "Justifiable Homicide" law.

Because very few people actually opt to use their one murder out of conscience (after all, very few people would commit murder if they could guarantee they wouldn't be caught), and the ones that would consider it have this to think about:

Who is more likely to be murdered? A murderer or an innocent? Thus, using your free murder makes you more of a target than someone who hasn't because now you're considered fair game.

komodosp
  • 9,479
  • 21
  • 37
  • It's not just likenfor being murdered. On every minor disagreement with someone which hasn't used up his free slot, you would be at disadvantage, since they may threat with killing you and face no consequences, but you can't . – Ángel Sep 19 '15 at 21:18
  • Would it have to be a humane murder? –  Oct 28 '15 at 21:48