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 16:40:33 · 4 answers · asked by The Prince 6 in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
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 17:07:06 · update #1
It is because our legal system is based on faulty principles. A victimless crime is still a crime. By the way, your question in the details doesn't make sense. Price gouging and racism are supposed victimless crimes, but these crimes affect everyone.
It is based on the principle that the poor pay the pied piper and the rich manipulate him.
2006-12-10 16:46:01 · answer #1 · answered by Professor Sheed 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you saying such as in your first example of "victimless crimes" that there is mutual agreement and therefore no loss to the agreeing parties and no crime? The crime there is against a 3rd party vicitim, moral society, if none other also.
The second example of "victimless crime", regardless of legal description, involves a person, a primary individual victim, directly affected of such violations.
These are not, in reality, "equally victimless" crimes.
And you would realize that a fallen soldier would be equally mourned as a fallen store attendent; one fallen with permission of law, and one fallen by crime? I do hope so.
2006-12-10 17:25:43 · answer #2 · answered by baghmom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why is it that blue collar crimes get a harsher sentence than white collar crimes. A guy robs a bank with no weapon and leaves the bank with $600 will get 10 times the sentence someone who embezzles millions of dollars from a bank. That's the way the rich who make the rules like it.
I have a problem with saying a slum lord or a sweat shop boss isn't creating victims. For basic food and shelter you might not have much of a choice. But even with that to one side - You are talking white collar crimes.
2006-12-10 19:58:02 · answer #3 · answered by JuanB 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Have you ever worked for minimum wage? While getting your rent gouged? Victimless crime, my foot. Now let's hope you don't have kids or get sick, or get a bad room mate or whatever other circumstances await (thank goodness for Lemon laws...). What sort of punishment do you think that this person should receive after getting price gouged?
2006-12-10 16:52:32 · answer #4 · answered by tajmina 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋