Poll: Should victimless crimes be legal?
- Thread starter Pierced Kiss
- Start date
my point is: the reason why the government makes these victimless activities illegal is because the government cannot ultimately profit from the continuation of these activities
these activities cost the government money, either in lost tax revenue or incurred costs. it seems as though you are saying the same thing i am
these activities cost the government money, either in lost tax revenue or incurred costs. it seems as though you are saying the same thing i am
fair enough. better articulated than my definition i guess
likewise, getting caught having an affair increases the likelihood of your spouse divorcing you, and incurring legal and emotional costs as a result. someone has to pay, so there are definitely victims involved. incidentally, having an affair is not illegal
i'd say the activity that creates victims is getting in an accident. not wearing a seatbelt, in and of itself, costs nothing to the government and involves no victims. getting in an accident, whether while wearing a seatbelt or not, creates third-party victims, damages property, and costs the government, the insurance co, and the driver
however, you are not a criminal if you cause an accident
likewise, getting caught having an affair increases the likelihood of your spouse divorcing you, and incurring legal and emotional costs as a result. someone has to pay, so there are definitely victims involved. incidentally, having an affair is not illegal
i'd say the activity that creates victims is getting in an accident. not wearing a seatbelt, in and of itself, costs nothing to the government and involves no victims. getting in an accident, whether while wearing a seatbelt or not, creates third-party victims, damages property, and costs the government, the insurance co, and the driver
however, you are not a criminal if you cause an accident
To be honest, I think it`s a matter of trade-off. Being legally punished for having an affair seems to be rather "constraining". Being legally punished for not wearing seatbelts is not as "bad" (I`m having trouble getting the right worRAB across, hopefully you`ll understand what I mean).
As for causing accidents being illegal; it depenRAB on the law and the accident in question, does it not?
As for causing accidents being illegal; it depenRAB on the law and the accident in question, does it not?
the problem is, there's no logical pattern where activities that victimize are illegal, and activities that dont victimize are legal. we have victimizing and victimless activities on both sides of the legal fence.
as for comparing not wearing seatbelts to commiting adultery, i think this is serious case of reverse logic. on the one hand, we have an activity that in no way contributes to the harm of anybody (except in the case of an accident, which is a legal but harmful activity), and on the other hand we have an activity that destroys marriages, and almost always leaRAB to divorce and resent, not to mention financial costs. so how is it balanced?
as for comparing not wearing seatbelts to commiting adultery, i think this is serious case of reverse logic. on the one hand, we have an activity that in no way contributes to the harm of anybody (except in the case of an accident, which is a legal but harmful activity), and on the other hand we have an activity that destroys marriages, and almost always leaRAB to divorce and resent, not to mention financial costs. so how is it balanced?
I agree, the actual cause of victims in an accident, is the accident. But there is a secondary cost as a result of the accident, which is the injury of the occupants of the vehicle. Seat belts increase that injury.
Have to disagree with not being a criminal if you cause an accident; In the US (How is it in Sweden, Eddie? And don't know where you are Unker), you can and often are ticketed by the police for causing the accident; although it is not usually a major crime, things like running a stop sign or losing control are offenses that can be ticketed. There have also been criminal manslaughter charges due to driving negligence when someone is killed.
Yes, true. So this is NOT a victimless crime, and falls outside our discussion. But again it is an action of people that CANNOT harm the government, so the government has no reason to legislate against it.
It seems by constraining you mean taking away personal choice. It does seem that the punishment should be appropriate to the crime.
The penalty for not wearing your seatbelt is only a few dollars fine. I don't think there is a criminal penalty, except perhaps some points on your license. The potential for greater injury if an accident occurs is large however.
The legal penalty for cheating on your spouse is none. Other things could occur, such as venereal disease, divorce, child support, etc etc.
Have to disagree with not being a criminal if you cause an accident; In the US (How is it in Sweden, Eddie? And don't know where you are Unker), you can and often are ticketed by the police for causing the accident; although it is not usually a major crime, things like running a stop sign or losing control are offenses that can be ticketed. There have also been criminal manslaughter charges due to driving negligence when someone is killed.
Yes, true. So this is NOT a victimless crime, and falls outside our discussion. But again it is an action of people that CANNOT harm the government, so the government has no reason to legislate against it.
It seems by constraining you mean taking away personal choice. It does seem that the punishment should be appropriate to the crime.
The penalty for not wearing your seatbelt is only a few dollars fine. I don't think there is a criminal penalty, except perhaps some points on your license. The potential for greater injury if an accident occurs is large however.
The legal penalty for cheating on your spouse is none. Other things could occur, such as venereal disease, divorce, child support, etc etc.
True, you don't have to have a license to have consensual sex with the neighbor's wife, it's not a privilege granted by the government. At least not yet. 
Yes, whoever caused the accident by their actions is to blame and should be responsible for damages.
Marriage as a contract...yes without a prenup not much is controlled or could be punished according to law.
Yes, whoever caused the accident by their actions is to blame and should be responsible for damages.
Marriage as a contract...yes without a prenup not much is controlled or could be punished according to law.