Why is it that in "victimless crimes" like prostitution and the sale of drugs, both parties are held criminally responsible and liable, wheras in the equally "victimless" crime of violating a price control (such as charging more for rent or paying less then the minimum wage), only the seller faces legal consequences?
2006-12-10 16:39:24 · 8 answers · asked by The Prince 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
A Victimless Crime, also known as Consensual Crime, is any activity which does not physically harm a person or property, or to which was in fact consented, and is currently illegal if based on statutory laws!
My point is that in prostitution, selling drugs, and going against price controls, BOTH PARTIES are involved...VOLUNTARILY. I am not talking about rape. I am talking about Prostitution. I am not talking about robberies or burglaries.
Now, does everyone see why these crimes are called victimless?
2006-12-10 17:06:41 · update #1
Selling drugs is a "victimless crime"? What are you thinking?
2006-12-10 16:43:54 · answer #1 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Because in price control cases 1) it wouldn't make sense to prosecute the renter because he is the person the law was meant to protect and 2) it would be hard to prove he "knew" that he was violating a rent control law after all it is the landlord that's in the business of renting not the renter.
Also, rent control and minimum wage laws are economic controls so we put the burden on those best suited to adhere to them while prostitution and drug use are vices that harm society and both parties are equally guilty.
I'm not saying any of this is right or that I agree with it, but this is the rationale.
2006-12-11 01:30:34 · answer #2 · answered by Daz2020 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because in the examples you provided, each party individually is guilty of a crime, for example the drug dealer is guilty of selling illegal narcotics and the buyer is guilty of possession of narcotics. In your second examples the lessee or employee does not commit a crime - he/she is strictly a victim. There is no crime of overpaying rent or receiving less than the minimum wage. The policy reason is that we want to protect victims who have been taken advantage of because they have less bargaining power. The John and the drug buyer don't necessarily have any less bargaining power and are exercising their free will to commit the crime. The lessee/underpaid worker are under duress or being defrauded.
2006-12-11 11:00:16 · answer #3 · answered by Tara P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because one person IS a victim in the second type of crime you listed. They are being taken advantage of. If they had a say so in it,they would not be paid less than minimum wage.
2006-12-11 00:49:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you in the US? I think victimless crimes should be decriminalized if not legalized. In Europe, prostitution is legal & regulated, pot is decrimilaized, gambling is legal. Why can't they lock up the violent criminals?
2006-12-11 00:47:03 · answer #5 · answered by shermynewstart 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you dont understand what victimless crimes are. the latter part you mentioned such as charging high rent have victims the people getting stuck with it. your question cannot be answered because it makes no sense sorry
2006-12-11 00:46:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Drug sales and use creates lots of victims. It is a drain on society. One drug addict has lots of victims. Price controls. I am not sure what your talking about. I assume you are refering to getting a person in a tight situation and taking advantage of them for ones own excessive gain. Hard for me to see there is no victim in this situation. Sure one may agree to it because of his limmited choices.
2006-12-11 02:20:36 · answer #7 · answered by jct_w 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
thats a new one on me. I thought it took two to sell drugs, ( the seller & the buyer), and when you have sex dont it take two, most of the time. This is the biggest bs I have ever heard of.
2006-12-11 00:48:48 · answer #8 · answered by karen v 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋