If you could commit one crime and it would forever thereafter cease to exist..

[brainbomb]

What crime would you commit - if you could erase that crime from ever happening again. And all you had to do was commit that crime.

[Octavious]

I'd kill all seagulls. And then it would indeed be impossible for anyone else to kill a seagull.

Is that the kind of thing you're getting at?

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

3rd degree arson.

[Jamiet99uk]

I would kill Benjamin Netanyahu, and I would publicly declare exactly why: he is a despot, carrying out an actual act of genocide in Gaza.

[Lilificent]

I would kill Benjamin Netanyahu, and I would publicly declare exactly why: he is a despot, carrying out an actual act of genocide in Gaza.

A noble intention, no doubt, but a little short-cited - don't think we want to forever remove the ability to kill future genocidal despots (or present-day ones, for that matter!)

[MajorMitchell]

Alas jamiet99uk killing naughty Benjamin wouldn't solve the problems in Palestine

If killing humans is a solution then you have to kill 99.99999% of the world's current human population,l based in intelligence and skills
reduce us to a few hundred thousand of the most intelligent with the desired skills, eg scientists

[brainbomb]

Hate crime would be a solid option if you can stomach doing a hate crime one time in order to end all future hate crimes

[Octavious]

Hate crime would be a solid option if you can stomach doing a hate crime one time in order to end all future hate crimes

I guess it depends on how all future hate crimes are ended. You could end all future hate crime tomorrow by removing the concept from law. You can't commit a crime that doesn't exist. Very little in the real world actually changes, but the job is done. An alternative option is an exercise in mass mind control, nerve stapling the entire population so that hate crime is impossible as we no longer have free will... This is, of course, considerably worse than the problem of hate crime it solves. So on balance I think I'd quite like hate crimes to stay.

I quite like the Major's idea of preventing future genocide by committing one massive genocide. I was clearly lacking in ambition with my seagull plan

[Jamiet99uk]

I would kill Benjamin Netanyahu, and I would publicly declare exactly why: he is a despot, carrying out an actual act of genocide in Gaza.

A noble intention, no doubt, but a little short-cited - don't think we want to forever remove the ability to kill future genocidal despots (or present-day ones, for that matter!)

You're right, I wasn't thinking about the second clause. Hmmm.

[Jamiet99uk]

Thinking more about this.... does it have to be a crime that one of us, as an individual, would actually have the capacity to commit?

Like, for example, could I choose to commit a crime which, in practice, I would never be able to carry out in real life?

Take my original Netanyahu example: I, Jamie, would be very unlikely indeed to be actually capable of travelling to Israel, getting past all of the state security in place, and carrying out the act. Is this still a valid response or does it have to be something I would be capable of accomplishing?

[Octavious]

Interesting question. Yes, you'd almost certainly just achieve the crime of attempted murder. So would that mean in future people would be unable to attempt murder, or that anyone who attempts it has to succeed?

[Crazy Anglican]

I'd run a corrupt corporation particularly, I'd buy off politicians.

[Crazy Anglican]

To be very clear in doing this, I'd mix personal and business funds in the above act.

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

By committing third degree arson (accidently causing something someone else owns to be set on fire), I would prevent anyone from ever accidently setting something someone else owns on fire. I believe this would eliminate a large fraction of car and truck crashes.

[brainbomb]

To be very clear in doing this, I'd mix personal and business funds in the above act.

This was intended to be a hypothetical not reminiscing about your past.

[Crazy Anglican]

To be very clear in doing this, I'd mix personal and business funds in the above act.

This was intended to be a hypothetical not reminiscing about your past.

Yes, it just seemed like an excellent hypothetical way to get campaign finance reform.

[Jamiet99uk]

I think on reflection I would commit arson.

Arson is a major cause of forest fires (it has been suggested that around 60% of wildfires in Europe in recent years have been caused by arson). Therefore making it impossible for anyone ever again to commit the crime of arson would have significant long-term benefits for the environment.

[Jamiet99uk]

Interesting question. Yes, you'd almost certainly just achieve the crime of attempted murder. So would that mean in future people would be unable to attempt murder, or that anyone who attempts it has to succeed?

Likewise it would be very challenging for you, personally, to kill every seagull currently in existence.

[Octavious]

Interesting question. Yes, you'd almost certainly just achieve the crime of attempted murder. So would that mean in future people would be unable to attempt murder, or that anyone who attempts it has to succeed?

Likewise it would be very challenging for you, personally, to kill every seagull currently in existence.

Why does it have to be me personally? You're keen as mustard to assassinate the Israeli Premier for his perceived crime of mass murder, yet I'm far from certain he's killed anyone personally. I'd only have to be held responsible for the death of all seagulls. I don't actually have to kill any more of them myself.

I have a chat with some of those delightful boffins in Wuhan Province, make a modest investment, and they'll come up with an avian myxomatosis and job's a good'un

[Jamiet99uk]

Interesting question. Yes, you'd almost certainly just achieve the crime of attempted murder. So would that mean in future people would be unable to attempt murder, or that anyone who attempts it has to succeed?

Likewise it would be very challenging for you, personally, to kill every seagull currently in existence.

Why does it have to be me personally? You're keen as mustard to assassinate the Israeli Premier for his perceived crime of mass murder, yet I'm far from certain he's killed anyone personally. I'd only have to be held responsible for the death of all seagulls. I don't actually have to kill any more of them myself.

I have a chat with some of those delightful boffins in Wuhan Province, make a modest investment, and they'll come up with an avian myxomatosis and job's a good'un

But then you would be commissioning the Government of China to commit a crime. Wouldn't that change your own offence to something in the sphere of international espionage, rather than mere seagull murder?