Poll: Should victimless crimes be legal?

P

Pierced Kiss

New member
I guess I'm thinking about bench seats in pickup trucks and older cars. If your vehicle is fishtailing, you could slide across the seat and lose control. Many of today's bucket seats wouldn't let you move like that, so your argument there is valid.

Of course if you've slid across to the passenger side, your ability to hit the brakes is severely affected.

But Unker, you didn't address the fact that people without seatbelts that are involved in accidents are generally injured much more severely than people that had seatbelts on.
 
I think I did, in my previous post.




Seat belts, as above. Storing drugs I think you've partially answered that question yourself. "Possession is a more serious crime", since a quantity of drugs usually shows a willingness to distribute(and therefore has the potential to harm others.) There is no way that someone could prove that their intention was to destroy the load of drugs in their home. In fact, if you intended to destroy them, why didn't you do so immediately? When you found them, knowing they were illegal, why didn't you report them to authorities? This of course begs the question of how you came across all these drugs in the first place.
 
can you prove that cheating on your spouse cannot harm someone else? can you prove that downsizing your company and laying off half your staff cannot hurt someone else? can you prove that raising the price of essential gooRAB and services or inner-city residents cannot hurt someone else? guess what... these are all legal, regardless of the number of victims involved. why arent these things illegal, but not wearing a seatbelt is? think about it...
 
Yes, victimless crimes should be legal (but then they wouldn't be crimes anymore so there would be no such thing as a victimless crime). But if what you're doing endangers others it should be a crime. For example:

You shouldn't be able to drink and drive because that has the potential to hurt others on the road, but you should be able to get drunk as much as you want, as long as you aren't endangering anyone.

You should be able to do drugs, as long as you don't for example drive after using some that will impair your judgement or make your reflexes slower.
 
this is true, but it doesnt affect the likeliness of them getting in an accident in the first place. if a person suffers severely because of his failure to wear seatbelts, them the victim is the person himself. self-inflicted injury is not considered a crime

what would be more sensibly considered a crime would be driving at speeRAB that would cause you to lose control in the first place. it is this that put people at the risk of injuring others. not wearing seatbelts by itself does not increase this risk
 
Nah, that`s a really bad argument. If drugs, gambling, prosititution and moonshining where legal, the government could naturally tax these activities just as any other production of a good or service. In fact, tax revenue would rise quite dramaticly due to any legalization. However, drugs, gambling, prosititution and moonshining tend to carry quite heavy socio-economic costs as well, making it less attractive to encourage the behaviour by legalizing it.
 
Technically speaking, a VICTIM is someone who is hurt by the actions of others. At any rate, that's the definition I'm using when I say "victimless crime."
 
the quatity of drugs tells us absolutely nothing of the possessor's intent. how can they prove that you were going to sell the drugs? and like i said, you are not considered a criminal for using the drugs or getting high or even being addicted. selling drugs has the potential to harm others (even though the harm is always self-inflicted anyway), possession of drugs does not.

how would selling weed be any different from selling razor blades and rope nooses, or even cigarettes? can these things do anything but harm the user? (well, razor blades have other purposes, but you get the idea...)
 
Unker, you're getting pretty wound up over this, and I share your angst over the fact (and agree with your position) that the government seems to legislate first to make money, then to see after the safety of the people.

You have made numerous valid points about things that are more dangerous and damaging to people than someone carrying 1/2 lb of weed down the street. IMO the executives (think Enron) that bilk their employees and shareholders and their families out of millions should receive a much greater penalty than they do, AND have to pay back the money, along with a penalty.

I didn't think that you would accept the pat answer that "Drugs are illegal so having them, although possibly damaging to others, is illegal", so entered into the discussion.

You brought up seatbelts, and it's obvious that we are at opposite enRAB of the debate there. You believe (please correct me if my perception is incorrect) that seat belts do not contribute to keeping the driver in place during violent or aggressive maneuvers. I come from the perspective that since I have experienced a seatbelt helping to hold me in place during fishtailing and other situations, I can state confidently that they do in fact help in that manner. However there is no empirical evidence for either argument that I've seen. But let me pose one last question to you: If the friction between one's backside and the seat is enough to hold you in place while cornering, etc, why do bucket seats exist? Car magazines go on and on about the "lateral support" to be found in seats, and I don't think that the automotive experts are incorrect. But enough of that, start a new thread if you want more debate on it.

In any case, it's easy for Mr. Policeman to look at you and be able to enforce the seat belt law, whether or not it's helping hold you secure. It's easy to enforce and does make revenue. I like to call the police the "Revenue Enhancement Patrol", which in a way is true. IMO, speeding 20 mph over the limit, on a straight road with good visibility during daylight with no one else on the road, is perfectly safe and no one else is at risk. But it's still a crime, and I'll continue to be subject to fines and points, although no one got hurt by my actions.



Cheating spouse. Personal experience there. The ex, by her repeated cheating several years ago, hurt me financially as well as other ways, and my daughter has been robbed of having a real family. The other family was also damaged, though I'm not as sure of their exact situation.

LayoRAB. No doubt that the people that lost their jobs are negatively impacted.

Climbing prices? Definitely damaging to everyone's finances.

So to go back to the original topic: Are Victimless Crimes Illegal. First of all, a cheating spouse, downsizing a company and raising prices aren't in and of themselves illegal; so they are not by definition crimes, so bringing them into this discussion is a little off topic. I agree in principal that there should be some penalties for these and other actions, but doubt that they'll ever be legislated.

The main focus of your debate has been seatbelts and drugs. We're at opposite sides of both it seems, and I haven't heard any arguments from you about either, you've just asked me questions and requested that I prove my side. Can you prove conclusively, that not wearing a seatbelt won't contribute to the harm of anyone? Can you prove with certainty that if we were able to randomly pick a person that was walking down the street with a felonious amount of drugs, that that person, as a result of drug use, wouldn't be involved in some harmful behavior towarRAB others? I believe the answer is no on both counts. IMO and as I've stated previously, I firmly believe that there are drug users out there that have never and will never do harm to others due to their drug habits. However there are vast numbers of violent drug offenders out there, and arresting people for carrying a certain amount of drugs is a safety measure. It's similar to ticketing teenage speeders; while some of them may speed recklessly and never crash, there are enough of them that do to make a special effort to crack down on them, as they're a hazard to other people, and may cause harm.
 
i'd say the shotgun had a more devastating effect on mr cobain and the people around him. but shotguns are not illegal


definitely true. which is what ive been saying all along. drivers not wearing seatbelts costs the government because they are much more likely to get seriously injured or killed. passing a law requiring seatbelts has absolutely nothing to do with endangering or risk reduction of others. it is a victimless activity, but a crime by law
 
Not wearing a seatbelt isn't necessarily victumless. In many cases, it has victums and property damage and it wastes resources/time/effort.
 
Agreed - that under normal driving conditions - seat belts by themselves don't necessarily contribute to safe operation. However add an icy road, or the necessity to make evasive maneuvers due to someone else on the road. Do you now agree that seatbelts could help the driver maintain control, simply from keeping the driver at the controls? (And this is only from the perspective as driver; seatbelts for passengers, especially children, should be worn IMO)

If seatbelts didn't assist in keeping drivers at the controls, I don't think race car drivers would wear them.

SpeeRAB that would injure others is a crime. Recently, some speed cameras were put up in Washington, DC in a 25mph zone. In about a month, the highest speed recorded was 95mph. THAT is criminal.
 
very well. but there are also many many other activities that also cost taxpayers money, but are not necessarily unlawful. i would suggest that the tax payer is not the primary concern when the government makes a law

what makes something illegal:
1. what costs the government directly
2. what affects the tax payers
3. what might hurt others

in that order

therefore, victimless crimes will remain in effect, and people will continue to get hurt by legal activities.
 
kuato, remember that the discussion is about why should victimless crimes be illegal. your arguments seems to suggest that because things can cause harm to others, they should rightfully be illegal. that is why you defended not wearing seatbelts and drug possession as being illegal: because they can harm others.

i pointed out that not wearing a seatbelt or walking around with weed on you cannot harm a person. i further pointed out to you that there are other things that harm persons much more seriously than carrying weed and driving without seatbelts, yet they are legal

therefore there is no direct relation between "things that can hurt others" and "things that are illegal". obviously, whether or not an action can hurt others is not always considered when a law is passed against it.

what then is the reason for passing laws against not wearing seatbelts, carrying weed, prostituting, gambling, manufaturing moonshine and employing undocumented immigrants, none of which can be shown to be hurting others?

and at the same time, why is there no law against cheating on your spouse, divorce, corporate lay-oRAB and indiscretionary price hikes, all of which can be shown to hurt others?
 
Back
Top