wrong comparison. there would be more murders in medieval europe if there weren’t lords and overlords with men-at-arms protecting their respective areas and the people in them.
Do you have a cite for this, because I cannot find any support for this or you rationale.
I think you’re failing to fully draw the right comparison. Right now the “cost” you describe is low because you don’t really have to worry about their family killing you.
When murder becomes legal, you killing someone would result in almost immediate retaliation. And it’s unlikely it would be proportional, “their family” might chose not to just go after you but also your family as well. Now factor that into your decision whether or not to kill.
Right now you fear retaliation by the cops but not the family, if murder was legal how much would your fear of retaliation go up?
It’s interesting to consider how much of what we do is based on legalities. If you went to a place where murder was legal, would you kill someone just for fun, or would you intuitively know it’s still wrong?
I don’t unbuckle my seat-belt when a cross state lines. Nor do I suddenly decide to drink and drive when I go someone where with lax laws, or steal when I think no one is looking.
Not nessesarily. Maybe the cops are what keeps the family from retaliation. If the family prefers that you rot in prison, then I think you would face a much harsher sentence if that option is not available.
What about killing someone without a family, or with a feeble one? When murder often resulted in the death penalty there was still plenty of murder, and it is harder to run from the law than a family.
There are two more sources of increased murder. The first are serial killers, who can do it more openly. The second is revenge for non-murders. Someone rapes your daughter - boom. Drunk driver kills some of your family - boom. Guy cuts you off - boom.
On the plus side, there could be a great new TV Game Show.
Doesn’t a similar problem present itself in our current situation? If you kill a homeless dude what’s the likelihood of a murder investigation?
And I’m curious to know if you personally would kill someone if you were in a country where it was legal?
A few years ago Canada introduced legislation that allowed the government to prosecute citizens that molest children in other countries. Again this is a situation where I’d like to think most of us see it as wrong to rape children, and refrain from doing it with or without formal laws.
This is a more important point than you realize and shows the level of ineffectiveness a law has at actually stopping a crime. At best we get to feel good that we prosecuted the offender.
One wrinkly in this discussion though is what other laws are still on the books. If I fail to kill you will I go to jail for assault?
And if cutting someone off had the risk of death, wouldn’t people be a lot better drivers?
OK, I kill a random dude. His people pissed and kill me in retaliation. Then what happens? Do my people sit still for this? Hell no, they have to kill the guys who killed me. And now they have to kill the guys who killed the guys who killed me. And so on. This sort of blood feud is an inevitable consequence of the fact that your protection against murder is only as strong as your family’s willingness to kill anyone who kills a member of the family. Even if I had it coming, because I’m the one who started the blood feud, it doesn’t matter, because a family that that doesn’t revenge murders is a family that can be attacked without consequence.
This is not some theoretical inference. It happens in every society where there is no protection against violence except the family. The leading cause of death for adult males in most non-state societies is homicide.
Violence breeds violence. The reason we don’t go around attacking people who annoy us is because we live in a peaceful society, and we’ve been trained all our lives to be peaceful. When you live in a society where violence is everywhere, you must become violent in response.
it’s not always the case. don’t think in terms of the hatfield and mccoys. think in terms of the old mafia and the coccaine cartels. both sides will be sufficiently peopled and armed so as to make a war too expensive for both sides. this will cause groups to settle for coexistence, just like what eventually happens to belligerent nations. the phenomenon of armed peace is simply brought down to the citizen level.
Erm… the cocaine cartels haven’t settled for coexistence, as far as I can tell. Nor did the mafia until they were decimated by racketeering prosecutions.
well, has any of them been massacred to extinction before that? i suppose there were small groups that were. but either that or they eventually clumped together through mergers and assasinations.
But the question is how much more violent? Remember that even with murder illegal, there are a lot of murders. What’s odd is that we’ve got dozens of industrialized nations, all with the same laws against murder, but widely varying murder rates. In that case, it seems the presence of the law is only one small factor.
But even between rival gangs, there is often a semblance of peace, where war is costly. Even in places like post-invasion Iraq there was a lot of retaliation killings, but it did seem to simmer down, and becomes background noise. By that I mean, it obviously doesn’t stop, but how much more murder is there at steady state?
No question during the transition there would be a spike, but after 10 years, is the murder rate that much higher?
Lastly, consider the mafia situation, where people know not to kill a “made man.” In lawless regions where drug cartels murder at will, there is little retaliation from “commoners.” As a result, there is still murder, but is it that much more than what we have now?
I think in practice, there is little difference between legalising murder and mandating the death penalty for murder.
As others have mentioned, vigilantes would target lethally murderers, and judging from the fact that murder is generally seen as a ‘Bad thing™’ there won’t be much opposition to the formation of protection services. They’ll have lots of moonlighting police and ex-soldiers signing up for vigilante organisations, as more than a few of them joined the police because “justice” mattered to them. They’ll be financed through ‘optional’ insurance, and I doubt there’ll be a lack of volunteers willing to wipe out childkillers “pro-bono”
The murder rate will go down, not up. Firearm accidents might go up, as more people might be nervous enough to carry guns.
There is one factor I haven’t fully taken into account though, is the free-rider/herd-immunity problem. Ideally, potential murderers wouldn’t know who is not insured, so killing anyone would be very risky, however, people might think assumption makes them safe, and thus neglect to buy, leading to less and less people being covered, and a greater chance for murderers to bump off loners scot-free.
How could you not know that the answer to that question is “yes” .
Huh?
This debate has reached multiple pages, it’s not as obvious as you think
It is obvious to any thinking human being:… allow murder ==> more murders.
Duh! ?? 
Perhaps you, as a thinking human being, can explain why different countries with very similar laws can end up with vastly different rates of homicide.
Intentional homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants
Austria 0.56
Japan 0.83
Germany 0.84
Canada 1.62
Bangladesh 2.4
United States 4.8
Is intentional homicide some how 8.5 times more legal in the US than in Austria? Or are their other factors involved?
For you personally, if you went to a country where it was legal, would you kill someone?
How about this idea. Take everyone in prison for murder, and let them out on the streets. Are all those violent murderers on the streets going to mean more killing, or less killing, because those murderers would be afraid to murder anyone?
The notion that the murder rate would go down if we legalized murder is simply laughable.
Of course the typical person isn’t going to go out and kill for fun, just because murder is legal. Except, there really are people who kill for fun. There really are people who kill because they have no impulse control. There really are people who kill because they’re antisocial assholes. There really are people who kill for money.
Are these people going to go away because murder is legal? Are these people going to be deterred by the terrifying thought of the victim’s family? The victim’s family can only exercise revenge if it is large enough and powerful enough and rich enough to track down the killer. Nowadays, we hire professionals to do this job. And specialization creates a gigantic economy of scale. Just as your clothing, and car, and electricity and furniture and food is much cheaper when you trade than if you have to make everything yourself, so does security. A lone person has no security. A person who relies on his clan has better security. A person who relies on their government has even better security.
Aren’t you going to tell us the answer? What are the stats for murders committed by released murders? How many of them killed someone once, regret it, and never plan to again?
We have a high murder rate despite laws prohibiting it, obviously those that want to kill do, some many many times before going to jail. The question is then how many people would like to kill but don’t because of the law?
In some ways, our laws are set up such that once you’ve killed someone and face life in jail, you might as well kill as many people as you can before you’re caught. The rest of us have to hope that he’s caught before too many people die. The Beltway Snipers shot thirteen people, killing 10.
They will if enough get killed. Cite: The Wire. However homeless people don’t have a lot worth stealing. You’d do better giving non-blonde women as an example.
No, but then I stop for yellow lights that have been on a while. Though I would take out a red light runner if I could just get a phaser mounted in my car.
But clearly not all of us. In any case, it being legal in some sense makes it seem acceptable.
Given our desire for freedom, there is a tradeoff between a society that is always watching us to prevent crime and one that just punishes.But both those societies would seem to have less crime than one which is totally permissive. In any case, my point is that given that people kill even when they get punished, why do you think fewer people would kill without punishment.
Running red lights, weaving in and out of traffic, drunk driving and a host of other things carry a risk of death, yet people still do them.