Poll: Should victimless crimes be legal?

Perhaps a consideration to make is the chance that certain "victimless" crimes could in fact have a victim.

The seatbelt examples given above are a good one. Without a seatbelt, you could lose control of the vehicle, or be more seriously injured requiring more and more expensive medical care. Therefore seatbelt laws are a good idea IMO.

Drugs are a bit more complicated. When someone is experimenting then perhaps it's a victimless crime, unless they go out and drive under the influence and hurt themselves or others. In later stages of addiction however, we get into the realm of possibly of stealing to supply the habit, or injuring or killing others in the course of dealing or securing drugs for the habit. While there may be many who proclaim it won't happen to them, the reality of chronic drug use is that in many cases, eventually, someone is going to get hurt.

So for these two items, seatbelts and drugs, I'd say that ultimately they're not victimless, so therefore should not be legal.
 
No he did not. He took his own life with a shotgun. He did have heroin in him at the time though.

I personally don't believe in victimless crimes. People victimize their loved ones all the time through a variety of bad behaviors. Some will never be illegal.
 
I DO have a problem with all of this, and you hit the nail on the head. (I think we're in agreement but coming from different angles). The government makes laws to protect itself (seatbelt as it costs them $$) but not to protect the citizens (prices, wages, etc).

This is the reverse of what I believe it should be -- the government of any country should look out first for its citizens. Of course it could be argued that if the government doesn't take care of itself, it eventually won't be able to take care of the citizens.

-edit- not that I agree with that last argument; IMO it's a balance that must be maintained between the two.
 
if a person gets in an accident, it usually has nothing to do with whether that person wore a seatbelt or not. not wearing a seatbelt doesnt impair your driving or put you at a higher risk of hurting others

incidentally if you do get into an accident and damage someone's property or injure them, youre not considered a criminal (although it costs you). accidentally victimizing someone is not a crime

i dont know if you realize this, but the other driver's ability to hit the brakes rather than lose control of the car has absolutely nothing to do with wearing seatbelts
 
I'm not so sure. It is possible that heroin prevented Kurt from killing himself sooner as heroin is known to deaden pain. Kurt had long term stomach problems associated with stress/anxiety and often suffered from severe stomach pain. I can't say why he chose a shotgun rather than overdose.
Killing himself is not a crime as I see it but there certainly were "victims" of his actions.
 
sinjin, thanks for the factual correction. Perhaps that helps make the case that heroin was having an effect on Mr. Cobain and the people around him.

Eddie, what you say makes sense. Moonshining for example is illegal; but if the manufacturer jumps through the correct hoops and meets the standarRAB required, then he can begin manufacturing his product. Seatbelt use can be measured looking only at the driver, or by all the other factors surrounding the vehicle, including medical expenses paid on behalf of the driver if/when they are injured. I think it's valid to state that without seatbelts, a driver in an accident is often, but not always, more seriously injured.
 
but if the government victimizes its citizens in order to protect itself, wouldnt that violate the rule of protecting the citizens? (ever heard of asimov's laws? ;) )

anyway... now with all this out on the table, lets review the original question:

should victimless activities be illegal?
 
victimless: not directly putting any third party or property at risk of physical damage or any form of harm.

not wearing seatbelts, carrying drugs around and hiring undocumented immigrants are examples of victimless activities, as are listening to music, reading a book or brushing your teeth.

driving recklessly, assault and arson are examples of activities that can cause harm to others, as are divorcing your spouse, firing your employees and spreading hiv.
 
would you like to elaborate how wearing a seatbelt helps you control a vehicle better?


interestingly, drug possession is a more serious crime than drug use. in fact, i dont think you can be charged for simply being high or drunk, or even addicted. but if you are found with a large amount of drugs at home or on your person, you can be arrested, even if your intention was to destroy the drugs


would you like to explain how not wearing seatbelts and storing drugs at your home endangers others?
 
Welp, it's illegal to possess drugs in the US. It's the law, and I surely can't speak for why certain drugs or behaviors are legal or illegal as (thank God) I am not a politician or lawmaker and didn't make the laws. Caffeine is a bit like aspirin though, discovered long before government regulation and deemed safe when regulation rolled around. Porn? Different topic altogether so I'll let it be.



Take the example of the documented heroin addict Kurt Cobain. He died from an overdose. Are you telling me this did not affect his wife (who is also a mess) or their child? How about the band, or their fans? I think they were all affected by his drug use and death. I'm sure there were effects during the time he was alive as well.



Well those might certainly be seen as victimless crimes, I agree. The gambler? It's all relative. If you take what $$ you have extra, go gamble, lose it, then go home then there's no problem. But I'm sure you've heard stories of people gambling away their houses, 401(k)'s, etc. Definitely a surprise when Mrs. Gambler and her 3 kiRAB get kicked out of the house because of Mr. Gambler's betting addiction. But IMO the real reason gambling is outlawed in most states outside Nevada is that it goes back to the founding of this country; suffice to say in this instance that there are many things our Founding Fathers thought shouldn't be done, and, based on the morality of the time they were outlawed. Personally, I'd like to see casinos.

Prostitution. Tough one there, but I think many, if not most prostitutes are the victims. Yes, yes, world's oldest profession and all that, but think about the word "pimp" and the worst you've seen in movies and that makes the argument here. Of course there are prostitutes that enjoy their job legally, but those are mostly in ta-da! Nevada, where they also have legal gambling. :)
 
many people die due to good quality liquor, cigarettes and prescription drugs. this is not the reason why the government make things illegal.

you seemed to argue that crimes are so stated because they hurt others. this is obviously not the case. there are may things that are considered crimes that do not hurt others. and there are many things that do hurt others that are not considered crimes.

why should victimless crimes remain illegal, while other acts that victimize people remain legal?
 
Exactly -- does your activity carry a statistical risk to do harm to someone else, whether by action, inaction or participation in that activity?
 
OK.


I guess that's far enough off topic, maybe another thread would be more appropriate to discuss the "Physics of Seatbelts during Lateral Acceleration". Maybe we could get a couple million from the government to study it. :)

The topic was "Should victimless crimes be legal". If they are truly victimless with absolutely NO chance of harming someone else, then I'd say yes. But if it can't conclusively be proven that a victimless crime canNOT harm someone else, then I'd say no.
 
the topic is about victimless crimes and why they are illegal. who is the victim when someone possesses drugs. your explanation that drug possession is illegal because drugs are illegal, and then that drugs are illegal because the government says so, is not addressing the question "why are victmless crimes illegal?" either drug possession victimizes someone, or it doesnt. which is it?


kurt cobain could have also died by a skydiving accident, walking under a falling piano, or any of the many methoRAB of suicide (all of which are perfectly legal) and his family and band would have been in the same position, or even worse off. he could have also cheated on his wife, got aiRAB and spread it to his wife, which is also legal. i could come up with lots of ways kurt cobain could have messed up his life, wife, band and fans (lol, dr suess style?) with no illegal activities involved. yet drugs are illegal. should all those other things be illegal as well?


ok, let me let you in on why drugs, gambling, prostitution and moonshine manufacture are illegal. its because the government doesnt make any money from it. thats all. it has absolutely nothing to do with harming others or being mind-altering or any of the other reasons you suggest. the government sees itself as the "victim", because unregulated sources of income cannot be taxed by the government, the governmet sees this huge slice of money that it doesnt have its hand in, and therefore it criminalizes these activities

do you know that its illegal for a non-taxpaying immigrannt to be your baby-sitter/gardener? you could be charged and the immigrant deported. wh's the victim?
 
Ah, I see. Perhaps the question is wether it is justified to implement purely preventive laws that discourages behaviour that is not per se harmful, but has a statisticly significant risk of resulting in harm (as opposed to not engage in the behaviour).
 
Back
Top