There are several individuals whom I would consider killing if there were no consequences. Probably wouldn’t now, but on a specific day…
Carrying a pregnancy to term is also more likely to result in injury or death* than a medically induced abortion, especially for teenagers, who are most likely to seek abortions, so I doubt safety is much of a deterrent.
*other than for the foetus, of course.
Yep jot me down as committing one; unless brutal torture, assault, and forced castration were legalized at the same time.
If murder were legal anyone remotely controversial would be dead. Do you really think Dawkins or Anne Coulter would be around?
I vote we keep it illegal.
Thanks for the cite. I didn’t read thru the whole thing, but does it suggest that abortion rates remain the same after abortion is legalized (or made illegal) in a given area? Since the question of the OP is whether making murder legal would increase, decrease, or have no effect on the number of murders.
I suspect that the number of abortions, or murders, would appear to increase after either was legalized. Part of this would be formerly clandestine acts that were then performed publicly. But I would further expect that the overall number would increase. There were nowhere near as many illegal abortions in the US per year before Roe v. Wade as legal ones after. No doubt part of that is RU-486 and such, but increased availability and a change to the culture is, I suspect, much more of a factor.
Regards,
Shodan
There are enough people out there not wired quite right who would use killing before exhausting other measures first. I think murder would go way up. Good to keep it illegal.
Other measures? Like maiming?
Other measures like mediation if it’s a simple dispute, or legal channels if it was something on that order.
Decriminalization =/= legalization
Edit: Plus, Portugal instituted a drug rehabilitation program in lieu of criminal penalties.
Yes, by a substantial number.
Heck, there’d be a few people—and it only takes a few—who would kill people for fun/sport.
You say that as if there aren’t already 
First, I hope that all you guys claiming to have a list ready of the people you’d kill if it were legal to do so are joking! 
I have no motivation for killing anyone, in fact, I’d consider it morally wrong, regardless of it’s legality (imagine that!).
BUT, I’m also a very practical person, IMHO. And as this thread proves, there are a lot of whackos out there, who would want to bump me off, and so I too would end up killing people left and right, but only as preemptive strikes.
Co-worker gunning for the promotion I’m in line for? Kill him. Not because I want that promotion, or I value the promotion over his life, but because that bastard sure as heck is going to kill me for it!
But how many people would kill FOR them given that murder is legal? While I think the world would certainly become more dangerous and far less productive, I imagine that after some time, you would reach an equilibrium not that much higher than it is now. The reason I say that is because most people have someone that would kill for them as much as they do people who would want them killed. Just because someone may take the opportunity to kill me doesn’t mean my wife, brother, etc. would let it go. Therefore, committing a murder would be putting a price on your own head. That alone would stop most people from deciding to murder someone on a whim, or because they don’t like the books they write. There just really isn’t much of a reason to murder most people.
It’s also worth noting that the the murder clearance rate has dropped in recent decades while the homocide rate has also dropped. If fear of punishment were a major deterrent, I would think there would be more of a correlation there. While I am sure it keeps many decent people honest, so does a society embracing mutually assured destruction. I don’t think it would make for good policy, as you would see neighborhood thugs taking control, security firms working for people of means, and ordinary citizens afraid to leave their homes. Kinda like you see in many developing countries when the rich (people) do not rely on the legal system for safety. Even in war zones like Iraq, the well-connected and rich are not killed very often because they can afford great security.
In some places and times, there are no laws against murder. You can kill anyone you like, the only problem is that if you do, his friends and family are going to try to kill you. But, since you are part of a family, once they kill you, your friends and family are going to try to kill them. And on and on. There is an endless cycle of murder and revenge murder that can’t be stopped, because if we don’t kill one of them every time they kill one of ours then they can kill us anytime they like. The supposed deterrent to wanton murder turns into an engine that creates murder.
This is why the first thing a government worthy of the name does is establish that no one except the authorities have the right to kill anyone. Not because Lord Pennybags gives a shit about some dead peasant, but because he wants his peasants working the lands and paying the vig, not killing each other. It’s not only an offense against the murdered peasant’s family, it’s an offense against Lord Pennybags and now he’s going to kick your ass, and your family isn’t going to do anything about it because Lord Pennybags will have them all killed if they try anything, and the ability to have those peasants killed is what makes him Lord Pennybags instead of some random schmuck.
What comes to my head is that October sees a sharp uprise in the murder rates in DC.
Why? Because people start wearing heavy coats, making it easier to conceal weapons.
Here are all these people, for whom something as small as a sweatshirt apparently makes the difference between killing and not bothering. In August, it would have been too much trouble. But in October, you’ve already got your gun with you, might as well go for it. Apparently, it doesn’t take that much to enable people to kill.
I imagine we would see a huge uprise in murder. We’d also see a huge rise in rape and robbery, and those would be deadly far more often. We’d probably soon get private security firms and gated communities for the wealthy, which would just exacerbate crime everywhere else, South Africa style. It’d be ugly.
my guess is a jump shortly after and then, in a few years, there’ll be less incedents than before it was legalized. reason: the citizenry would have adjusted to ensure their protection. a return to the feudal system?
So, you think there were fewer murders per capita in Medieval Europe than there are today?
So, you think there were fewer murders per capita in Medieval Europe than there are today?
How the heck does legalized murder lead to less murder? The fact that other people will murder you if you piss them off? Doesn’t that mean more murder, not less? If I kill someone today, I already have to worry about their family killing me. And I have to worry about the cops. Take away worrying about the cops, and the cost of murder drops dramatically.
Societies built around small, deeply interconnected groups of people- like most agricultural societies- are a pretty poor analogy. Our society blends anonymity and social disconnect with exposure to large numbers of strangers. This is a much riper ground for murder than a small, deeply connected village.
I much better comparison would be a fairly lawless urban area- like Johannesburg or Rio.