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
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Steve Bird
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 10:12
  • $\begingroup$ Seems similar to this question: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/19399/… $\endgroup$
    – zeta
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 11:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @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) $\endgroup$
    – o0'.
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 13:10
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$
    – James
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 13:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @James absolutely not. Crap questions ruin a site, and if they are too much, people would stop using the site, killing it. $\endgroup$
    – o0'.
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 14:18

2 Answers 2


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or the minute after anyone votes for this law, he would instantly be deposed as patently insane and the "law" would be repealed.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.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Tyrabel
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 11:04
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$
    – o0'.
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 11:06
  • $\begingroup$ @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? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 11:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Lohoris I agree that many of these 'what-if' questions can only very tenuously be described as being related to world-building. $\endgroup$
    – rumguff
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 11:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$
    – Fhnuzoag
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 14:05

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.

  • $\begingroup$ 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 . $\endgroup$
    – Ángel
    Commented Sep 19, 2015 at 21:18
  • $\begingroup$ Would it have to be a humane murder? $\endgroup$
    – user14789
    Commented Oct 28, 2015 at 21:48

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .