One Free Kill

[Stupot]

If you could kill one person, knowing you would be fully immune from prosecution or any other legal ramifications, who would you kill?

This hypothetical question comes up once in a while, and I've been thinking about it a bit. I think it would be a great setting for a novel if it hasn't already been done, and I've been mulling over some ideas.  But as well as asking who you would kill (if anyone), I'm hoping to get a bit of a discussion going about the idea.

Things to consider:
Would everyone be entitled to use it or would they have to reach a certain age, social status or income first?
Should they have to apply for it first, or could they just kill someone and then use their 'free kill card' when the police turn up?
Would anyone even use it? As my sister pointed out, using your free kill is just going to make you a target of the friends and family of that person.
How would such a law affect population?
Should their be some regulations that the death must be quick, or even not to be performed by the applicant at all, but by a professional?
Should their be some system in place where people can buy or earn immunity from being the target of someone's free kill?
Would it actually make people kinder to each other (for fear of being targeted) and would this kind of fear-induced pseudo-kindness turn everyone into compliant oppressed robots or would people quickly turn against the government and revolt?

Anything else you can think of apart from the obvious fact that the whole idea is inhumane and ridiculous and would almost certainly result in civil war

[DoorKnobHandle]

I saw this fairly bad horror-ish movie a couple months ago that was kinda like this. Basically a family gets into financial trouble, some weird old man shows up at their door, gives them a large red button that, if they press it, will kill some random person somewhere out there. It could be a kid or a dieing old person, but he assures them it would be someone they themselves do NOT know. If they press the button, the man promises them a large sum of money. Of course the family ends up pushing the button. It was an intriguing, psychological set up but they then went all kinds of supernatural and it ended up being a really dumb and senseless conclusion that couldn't keep up with the set up. I can't remember the name of the movie.

I myself would certainly not have anybody killed in the hope that the other people out there, that might end up killing me, would be as humane.

EDIT: The movie was The Box (2009), starring Cameron Diaz: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362478/

[gameboy]

Heh, I remember that exact story from an old Twilight Zone episode.

[Radiant]

This sounds like death note...

[Anian]

The thing I think would really control people in this case "do I want to use this up on this person?"

What TZ was all about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Zone)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oKSJZAaSyc

[Crimson Wizard]

There were once times when people had similar right. The slight difference was that by requesting a chance to kill one automatically offered the chance to his victim to kill himself. It was called "duel".

Speaking of this idea hypothetically, I don't think people will start murdering everyone around. Most of people out there would rather not do this at all. True hatred is not very usual thing, and so is true cold pragmatism.
Bad thing is that criminals will certainly use this in their advantage.
The benefit of right of duel being acknowldeged by society is that people have better manners and try to follow basic etiquette in conflict situation, for any insult may lead to you being challenged. Problem is that "free kill" is not exactly duel. One thing is when both having same chance, so it feels like a fair challenge, and other thing is killing some one cold-blood while your victim supposedly does not even know what's coming.

Would everyone be entitled to use it or would they have to reach a certain age, social status or income first?

Of course, only adults should be given this right,
no wait, actually only children. Only strongest should survive. And adults are going to be good parents, or they will be dead parents.

Should they have to apply for it first, or could they just kill someone and then use their 'free kill card' when the police turn up?

...You know what I see? I see two men who hate each other meeting in the Kill Chance Registration office, applying for each other. Now, question is, whose application will be signed first. Mwahahaha.

Hey, I just invented a story for adventure game. *wink*wink*

Would anyone even use it? As my sister pointed out, using your free kill is just going to make you a target of the friends and family of that person.

Assuming this, it is much safer to kill all family. How would you do this having only one kill allowance? By collaborating with your relatives and friends, of course.

How would such a law affect population?

What population?
Mwahahaha.

[Squinky]

I would Kill Oprah, Bang Ronald Reagan, and marry Hilary Clinton.

[Mouth for war]

I want to kill Ellen DeGeneres every fucking time I see her retarded dance!!! but that doesn't really count I guess...There's noone I hate that much right now

[ddq]

Technically, everyone does have one free kill, free from legal ramifications, if you know what I mean...

[selmiak]

I would kill the person responsible for the one free kill policy so this madness is stopped. Revolting enough?

About the 'the family of the victim is after you' problem, maybe once you killed your enemy you start to like killing people just for the thrill of it and kill them all. I mean, if you are clever and there are no whitnesses and you are cold blooded enough who will stop you? Or kill 'him' with a carbomb and 'accidently' the whole family is in the car.

[Stupot]

[Disclaimer: Some of what's below is just stream of conciousness, thinking out loud rambling, so please excuse any total bollocks]

Hehe @ddq, good point. I should think of a better way to phrase that.

@Selmiak, I wouldn't be making the rules, but I'm guessing the people who do will include some kind of clause where you can't kill a member of the government.  Perhaps joining the governing party would become the only way to get immunity, but not just anyone can join, you have to pay huge sum of money.  And not just money, but you'd have to give up your free kill (if you haven't used it yet, and if you have used it, you're either not allowed in, or you have to pay more).

Also, how about this?  If you don't intend to use your free kill card, you can donate or even sell it.  Businesses dealing in kill cards could be set up, assassins and crimelords would pay huge sums for them. But they would have to be quiet about it because they could be easiliy targeted by anyone with a free kill.

I like CW's thing about families and groups collaborating in a kind of 'if you kill one of ours, we'll kill one of yours' gang rivalry.  Could be interesting to explore.  But I think mostly it would just be families and individuals just trying to get by day-to-day without pissing anyone off.  But then again, normal people aren't suddenly going to change.  Not everyone is a murderer, and most people would like to think they wouldn't use it... but what if you were pushed, and had that extra bit of legislation in your favour?  As Anian says, people won't want to just waste their free kill on the first person who pisses them off, it would be a really interesting personal decision.  Some people will genuinely beleive that their kill will be used for the greater good, by getting rid of a corporate bully or a known terrorist leader (although in this scenario, the terrorists would probably be the good guys, trying to fight this regime).

CW, I agree this would probably only apply to adults, but then I think of Hunger Games where the government puts kids as young as 12 into an arena to watch them kill each other.

Thanks for the links about that Twilight Zone episode and The Box.  I hadn't seen either, but I have now watched the TW episode and found it really interesting.  Loved the twist at the end, but the acting was terrible!  And then I watched the fist hour of The Box on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXUQcOlOUXo) but have had to give up.  The first 40 minutes were basically exactly the same as the TW version, but stretched out, after which it turned into some awful M. Night Shyamalan shit.
Keep the ideas coming.

[miguel]

This sounds like something made by the devil, where no good things could come out of it. Something out of the Twilight Zone. The people that create such thing as a "free kill right" are responsible for the outcome.
But it can be interesting to debate and extrapolate on a philosophical realm. Would the owner do it or refuse to do it is the big question here.

Such a thing could not exist in a modern civilized society. Take the Nuremberg trials, for example. The families of the victims could, if such a law existed, demand the right to own the "free kill right". If a country or organization decided to give those "rights" to people then they would become responsible for it. Therefore they would allow people to kill out of revenge, independently if moral justice was being done or not. The cycle would restart.

Third world dictatorships do include laws and rights that sound pretty much like the "free kill card" though.

We came very far to abolish people's right to kill others. So, morally, it would be wrong if such a thing existed, although it does leave content for a very interesting debate on human existence.

[Khris]

I already used mine on that Apple guy.

Kidding aside, I find the idea fascinating. I love the saying that lots of people are only alive because it's illegal to shoot them. I have met some truly despicable people in my life, and I sometimes thought about making a list and taking them with me, should I ever get seriously ill or something like that. Not seriously though, don't call the police on me.

A big part of this is whether there are people who "deserve" to die. I guess if you think that there are, this idea is much more likable than if you don't.
Giving rich people special treatment would be wrong. They can already get away with much more than poor people anyway.
So methodology is really important.
Ideally, people would get killed by impersonal government guys, and contracts are submitted anonymously. That way, retaliation and people failing to bring themselves to kill another human being don't enter the equation.

If this were to happen, I think mostly bullies and loan sharks and the like would kick the bucket. In fact, I think that most people would choose a target whose death is beneficial in some practical way, as opposed to getting revenge. I have to say, the more I think about this the more I realize that I'm not completely and instinctively opposed to this idea.

What if we had to reduce the number of people because there's isn't enough oxygen for everybody (say, because big parts of the rain forest die)? Would that change the situation for people who think it's appalling?
What if people can choose somebody who gets to live and everyone with zero votes has to die?

[Ryan Timothy B]

What if people can choose somebody who gets to live and everyone with zero votes has to die?

That wouldn't really work. For instance, you know you want your family to survive, so each of you vote for each other. Everyone lives. But technically all you really need is someone to vouch for you, and for you to vouch for them.

To make it complicated would be to give you a life vote and a death vote. Where you had to choose someone you want to live and someone you want to die (and any single person could receive duplicate death votes from many people around the world). One life vote and one death vote cancels each other out to zero votes. Worst case with the death vote is a person would simply choose someone who was infamously a prick. So perhaps it has to be someone you know in person. But that still wouldn't have favorable results. Your best bet is likely just a random vote - hopefully depending on IQ and education. I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing the town's drunken liar got randomly selected to live while I didn't.

[Stupot]

How about this slightly different variation?
The idea of people randomly pulling out their 'free kill card' whenever they feel like it does seem very messy.  So maybe a more organised approach would be called for.  For example, when a person reaches a certain age, say 30, they are allowed to choose one person to die and the manner of death.

Perhaps, even, for the benefit of keeping population levels down, these people MUST choose to kill someone. They don't have the right to refuse. And if they do refuse they will be instantly executed.  This would create a society where 'who would you kill' is one of the biggest questions.  Some might be loud about it, but it would probably be best to keep it close to your chest, lest a friend of your target whose 30th birthday is before yours finds out.  Kids grow up being encouraged to think hard and sensibly about this moral duty that will one day befall them.  Some will use it for revenge, some will use it to kill known terrorists, paedophiles, shoplifters, and some may use it for the purposes of euthenasia (although a government that promotes killing would probably have legalized regular euthenaisa many decades beforehand).

[miguel]

Legalizing death.
A "free kill" when you turn 30 would serve the interest of the government that created it. How?
First of all, this government would be built on a massive propaganda system, so that the population would focus on the targets they want eliminated when they turn 30.

1)So, if the main goal of the country that allows "free killing" is population decrease (due to water/food/oxygen shortage) then the criteria chosen to pick who to die would fail on the less protected, poor layers of society.

2)If on the other hand, the decision on who to be targeted was of a moral nature, and the goal was to reduce crime, prison population and costs, then criminals would be the first choice.
Getting rid of paedophiles may sound right to many, most would agree that the world is a better place without them.Terrorists would fall in the same place, I guess. But what of gay couples that decide to raise children, the fine line on the general acceptance of it might become too thin. And what about the more refined criminals, the corrupted politicians, the mafia? My guess is that they would get away as they do right now. A common person who just turned 30, would primarily chose another type of criminal to "use his right to kill" because he would be afraid of retaliations.

3)The government decides that a certain percentage of the population that believe in deities (or specific god/gods) are harmful to the society. The individuals are encouraged by official propaganda to use their "right to kill" on them when they turn 30. The rising of martyrs and prophets would be a logical outcome. Holy wars may occur.

4)The government decides to put away opposing forces, the press, a big profitable corporation, opposing political parties; freedom of speech and commerce would end. And in what way a "free kill right" could serve them? Believing that we are talking about a big country with thousands of people turning 30 every day...

5)This is the less logical way a government would profit with the "free kill right":
   - government does not actively propagandise targets or even chooses to issue laws on possible targets; 
   - everybody who has it may decide freely on who to kill;
   - although people would gather together on groups and smaller societies, probably to establish targets, nothing would stop a guy from shooting a man that he found sleeping with his wife;

Sorry for the long text, but I think this topic is really interesting. My opinion is that for such a thing to exist, it would only be possible if a specific set of rulers could benefit from it and use it for their own purposes. People in general would become puppets and ultimately, criminals. And if one day this regime would fall and the "right to kill" abolished, the people that did use their legal right would be persecuted and put on trial (best case) for their crimes.

[mkennedy]

A big thing to consider would be if the names of the people using the free kill and their chosen victims is public or not. If this info is made public then people would hopefully only kill criminals or "evil people" that most of society would feel were worthy of death. However if there is complete anonymity then you'd have to worry about people being killed over petty squabbles or other minor things. Another thing to consider is how to keep the free kill out of the hands of criminals, perhaps convicted felons would be ineligible for using the free kill?

While I support the death penalty for pedophilia and other violent crimes I don't think I'd support the free kill policy. Sure somebody can be a world class jerk, but does that mean they truly deserve to die? And what would keep people from using the free kill over ideological differences?

That "Twilight Zone" episode though was a classic, especially the twist at the end! (Click for the spoiler)

Spoiler

Agent: I see you pressed the button, so we will now be giving the box to somebody else.
Citizen: Wait! Who will you be giving it to?
Agent: Somebody you don't know...

[close]

[magintz]

Noel Edmonds.

On another note there's a film coming out shortly that has a similar vibe. 12 hours, once a year where there are no laws and no repercussions. It's got Lena Heady (from Terminator: SCC). Think it's called twelve hours or something.

[TheBitPriest]

Does everyone remember Red Alert?  I always liked this game's SciFi back-story where Albert Einstein kills the "worst man in history," and of course, the results are devastating.   

[RickJ]

I would use mine on Stupot for comming up with this crazy idea.