Does a "Crime" Require a Victim?

General General Discussion
1

I’m not asking about the Penal Laws on the books in your AO. This is a philosophical discussion.

Should any activity that cannot be reasonably shown to create a victim, ever be considered a crime? If NO person is deprived of life, liberty, or property by the actions of an individual or group, is it still just and lawful to charge them with a crime?

Some obvious examples that come to mind are personal drug use, permit-less weapons possession, prostitution, freedom of private land usage (anti-zoning). Etc, so on and so on.

Your opinions gentlemen?

2

If your neighbor designated his home as a strip club or junkyard, would you not be adversely effected?

3

I would say no :slight_smile:

example
driving 150 on the HWY no victim if no crash but the danger of others being killed IF a crash did happen
so it does create a maybe victim that could have been avoided ?

I think thats what ya kinda mean by discussion ?

now of course you could say no harm no foul but the idea of putting that person in danger

that said argue with myself a pro race car guy at that speed or a motorcycle racer vs granny who cant drive and never could and has reflexes of frozen molases is more of a danger in some ways even if she is not breaking any laws ?

so one breaking a law is safer maybe than one not ?
both have the potential of creating a victim though but one is for sure breaking current law ?

how is that for a good point counter point :slight_smile:

4

In that case you would be the victim due to the devaluation of your property. However, the penalty should be civil, not criminal.

We have all sorts of mala prohibita crimes on the books that could be dealt with in civil court. This is why we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the free world. So much for “Land of the Free” huh? :frowning:

5

And what about the trespassers, those that urinate on your lawn, those that fistfight or worse on your driveway on the way to their car that is blocking you in? Going to file civil suits on each individually?

6

Yeah, the zoning laws are primarily for keeping adequate parking, fire code, noise, and thru traffic in residential neighborhoods down. Can’t say I disagree with zoning. But on the other hand, if you own your house and you want to run a small business there, and none of your neighbors can reasonably demonstrate a deprivation of their rights because of it . . .

Changing topic: I don’t believe there would be any victims whatsoever by decriminalizing marijuana. It’s a naturally occurring plant painkiller with far less negative health effects than alcohol.

7

Since you seem intent to derail your own thread by bringing up drug use:

http://www.inquisitr.com/246788/stoned-mom-leaves-baby-on-roof-of-car-drives-off/

Drug use is only victimless if: 1) the users are not parents / guardians, and 2) all social welfare programs have been removed so that taxpayers don’t have to fund an addict’s living expenses and medical bills.

BTW - I make no distinction between habitual alcohol and pot use. Also, your last sentance is a little misleading: most forms of alcohol in moderation carry negligable health risks to non-pregnant adults. For example, a glass of red wine per day probably confers some health benefits; the same cannot be said about smoking 1 joint per day.
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/marijuana.htm
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm

8

Just as an aside, for the people that don’t like zoning laws, go to India where there is no word for zoning. Million dollar condos next to literaly a house of boxes or condos with such weak associations that the outside of the building is a mold factory, bit no one has any reason to fix it as a whole. Great people, bad zoning. A complete clusterfuck of a way to run cities, or at least it doesn’t help with all their problems over there. :fie:

The whole ‘victim’ thing is why I’m not a fan of increased robotic surveillance. Not only is there not a victim, there is not usually even a complaintant. Literaly if a bear craps in the woods does a park ranger fine him- if he has a UAV, maybe.

I was starting to soften on my “War on Drugs” till I talked to an addiction specialist this weekend at a party. I was starting to warm to the idea of pot=alchohol, but this guy said that pot is becoming a real big problem in the addiction area. People get ‘medical MJ’ cards and think that makes it all ok and that its not addictive. The other thing is that most medical MJ is bred for its halucinagenic properties- very strongly- and less for the pain relieving properties. This ‘prescription so its benign’ and high ‘highness’ leads to people abusing it and leading to other drugs and bad decisions. My war is back on.

Wonder how popular Medical MJ would be if they bred the high out of it and concentrated on the pain relieving properties. A lot less 20-36 year old white males complaining about upper back/shoulder pain is what I expect.

9

Great and Honorable Sensei,

I didn’t derail my own thread. Marijuana fits into the discussion like a hand to a glove.

Your article link: that could’ve happened with a drunk mom too. Or it could’ve even happened with a mom that was completely sober and simply exhausted. It’s not an argument against decriminalization.

Parents should not get drunk in front of their kids. They should not drive while drunk. Same rules apply to weed. Decriminalize it, tax it, and treat it just like alcohol. No victims.

ColdDeadHand:

Agreed 100%. UAVs and surveillance cameras perpetuate an “everyone is guilty of something” mentality. I don’t like the Orwellian direction we are heading in one bit. We have no reasonable expectation of privacy when outside on public streets, but we do have the expectation that we will be deemed innocent until proven guilty, and that we will not be investigated and viewed with suspicion without some sort of probable cause.

10

My view on things.

Fed govt should have no jurisdiction over such things.
State govt can handle the bigger issues.
Zoning and such goes to county/local govts

I dont smoke pot. I hate pot. I think people who smoke live very dull lives - at least the alcoholics I know do stuff - the pot heads dont. That said - I dont care what you do. If you dont have children/dependents and want to smoke crack - have at it.

If it doesnt create a victim or (I feel this is missing in your OP) or create a REASONABLE fear of ones rights - it should be fine.

For example screaming “fire” in a theater might not create a victim, but it created a situation of real danger.

Also keep in mind about speeding arguments - if you kill yourself going 200mph - and hit no-one else, the taxpayers still have to pay to clean your car and entrails off the road and fix the guardrail.

Just some random thoughts to ponder on the subject, I guess.

A huge problem in this country is too many people are talking too much about rights and not enough about responsibility. Our govnt is rewarding irresponsibility which causes people to want more restrictive laws because the skid-marks of society are becoming too prevelent. I honestly feel that taking away welfare would - in a few years start to fix the problem.

You would think its on purpose. reward the scum, they will force society to vote themselves out of liberty… profit?

11

I would say yes, a crime requires a victim- but I’m one of those weirdos who thinks this country was founded by and SHOULD be for a free people who basically just want to be left alone.

12

To those that would say “a crime needs a victim OR a substantial reasonable threat of creating a victim”:

Isn’t that the thinking that got us the AWB? That’s protectionism. Protect people from dangerous things, protect people from themselves.

I’m bouncing around a few different thoughts here but, I’d love to see a constitutional amendment that states something like:

“The right of the people to engage in any activity of their own choosing shall not be infringed upon based on the irrational or unreasonable fear of that activity by others. There must be a reasonable, tangible deprivation of the life, liberty, or property of another caused by such activity in order to inact legislation banning that particular activity.”

Or how about:

“Congress shall make no law whose aim is to protect a person from himself or herself. The people reserve the right to make both good and bad decisions for themselves.”

13

if a crime had to have a victim that would surely change things quite radically on so many levels

14

I’m surprised this thread has gotten this far without someone mentioning drunk driving (unless I missed it). Certainly a “victimless crime” … until the drunk hits something or someone and wreaks all sorts of havoc and heartache.

Surely no one is advocating rescinding laws prohibiting driving while impaired or, if they are, I’d be interested in hearing that argument. There are activities which pose a clear threat to others and, as such, need to be regulated or prohibited. Willful negligence or disregard for the rights and safety of others may not always result in a victim, but are acts which society needs to discourage. And one of the mechanisms society employs to accomplish that end is making such activities illegal.

15

Legalize…

They tried in CA and failed.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=12037727

16

No. Next question?

17

If NO person is deprived of life, liberty, or property by the actions of an individual or group, is it still just and lawful to charge them with a crime?

Ever run a STOP sign?

18

So, all we need are some laws preventing people from smoking pot around their kids…:rolleyes:

19

Heres my take:

No victim=No crime

Endangering people/rights even without technically creating a “Victim”= Sort of a crime, one that should be punished, but not as harshly as the crimes that actually do create victims.

Let’s be honest having a beer or two in an hour or two then getting behind the wheel is about as dangerous/inhibiting to your senses as being a bit sleepy and driving, less inhibiting/dangerous some might argue. But being completely intoxicated; a whole different story.

Smoking pot in ones home or in the woods, private secluded places, etc- and not driving or handling machinery is fine by me, smoke away stoners…

But the second you get behind the wheel of a car on public roads, or operate heavy machinery on the job-site; you are an idiot and a criminal and should be treated as such.

The war on drugs has done nothing but increase the size and scope of law enforcement and put millions behind bars (Yay- I get to pay to put college kids and weirdos behind bars for getting high, in the “LAND OF THE FREE”) a good thing if you draw a check for being an LEO; but a bad thing if you don’t and have to pay the taxes to support such an idiotic and unwinnable war.

Engaging in an unwinnable war is- FUCKING STUPID!

I could declare a war on how crazy women are; but there is no victory to be found, ever. So how does this help anything to waste my resources on such a futile undertaking?

Regardless of how you personaly feel/stand regarding Marijuana; how can you justify the hundreds of millions we don’t even have to spend “Fighting” something that will never, never, ever, ever go away?

The war isn’t on drugs; it is on the human condition. People are going to seek alternate states of being; regardless of the mechanism they ultimately utilize.

You gotta love the hypocrisy of our societal/generalized mentality regarding pot & other substances VS. alcohol:

If you want to use alcohol, go for it; but do it responsibly or there are consequences to your actions.

But if you prefer other intoxicants; fuck you- you are a criminal, pay us this fine, or go to jail, and hey we just might fuck up the rest of your life based on this conviction (Asinine as it may be).

Makes a lot fo sense to me…:rolleyes:

Regarding lung cancer and marijuana Sensei; not everyone smokes it; some eat it, no lung cancer there. Some vaporize it leaving the carcinogens safely in the plant matter, no lung cancer there. Some concentrate/separate the canabinoids/canabinols from the plant matter containing the carcinogens; not much chance of lung cancer there…

Saying alcohol is less dangerous or less addictive than pot is ignorant and naive; on the same note, saying pot is non-addictive and isn’t dangerous is just as ignorant.

Remove addiction programs funded by the feds and the state, let addicts (all addicts, wether it be alcohol, pot, heroin, meth, junk food, prescription drugs, etc) choose to die/ruin their lives or to recover of their own volition; it is their decision to rot away or to live how they please; I have no right, nor any moral obligation to intervene.

Disability for having the “disease” obesity costs us millions and kills millions yearly. Should we make soda and candy illegal? Would that stop people from getting candy and soda? NO!

You cannot fight the human condition; just find a common ground of laws to help us all live within a moral and ethical confine. And lets not casigate people if they prefer one intoxicant over the other; drugs is drugs.

Thinking that illegalizing drugs will stop people from finding and using them is just as naive as thinking if you outlaw guns it will stop people from finding them and using them.

Interesting thing is when I saw a bunch of you type a variation of the above argument in the threads about the Aurora shooting/magazine bans, etc; and how pot is illegal yet people still use it; I was thinking to myself, some of these people advocate the war on drugs and are using its futility as the basis for your argument as to why gun regulation is useless! Funny stuff!

There are way too many laws and way to many LEO’s in this country; not to mention way to many people in jail that do not belong/deserve to be locked up with rappists, murderers, arsonists, pedophiles, etc- you know; the actual CRIMINALS!

No victim, no crime; it’s a pretty simple concept to justify.

20

The law abiding citizens of these cities beg to differ.

http://www.city-infos.com/25-most-dangerous-cities-according-to-fbi/