should victimless crimes be illegal, whats the harm if they are victimless?

Question

gay marraige, who is the victim?
smoking a joint, who is the victim?
anal sex, who is the victim?

Answer 1

Some should some should not.
Its easy to see the difference though.

Drinking and driving but you make it home ok? You still endangered everyone else on the road. In at least one country that is an automatic attempted manslaughter charge, even if you drive flawlessly.

Anal sex? The only person potentially hurt is the catcher, and if they are agreeing with it then there is no problem (or you could just do it properly so no one gets hurt at all).

Speeding? Depends on the speed first off. 5 over is considered fine. 20 over is dangerous. Roads are designed a certain way, speed limits are typically set at the maximum safe speed based on visibility and stopping distance of most vehicles-(I work for the DOT). Again, you are jeopardizing the safety of innocent people. However, police officers will always make judgement calls on this issue which is to be expected. Everyone speeds at some point, its just a matter of whether or not you learn before something bad happens.

Gay marriage? Another one that should be legal. No victims, not even any potential victims. If your views on the subject cause you to be offended that is your issue, no one is hurting you by it, and you are in no danger from it. Why should the gov't protect you from being offended, but not protect people from being offended by hate speech, or by having religion shoved down their throat by door knockers every Tuesday night?

As for drugs at home-I consider those to be like drinking. The action itself is not a problem as it is a personal choice within that person's body. It does not affect anyone else.

However, if the drink or drug contributes to you committing a crime (ie. DUI, stealing for crack money, getting messed up and beating up your neighbor, etc.) then you should not only be responsible for the crime, but also punished harsher for failing to control your recreation.

Cigarettes? A-ok for you as long as youre not subjecting other people to the second hand smoke. Im a smoker, have been for 9 years. Smoking bans arent going to make me stop, not even in public. Never in the past 9 years have I ever knowingly subjected anyone to second hand smoke, and anytime its happened by accident it was corrected immediatly. If I ever do subject someone to it then I'll feel I was deserving of the fine for smoking and will gladly take it.
_____

Its easy to see that victimless crimes are not really crimes, they are merely ways to enforce morals (which are personal, not universal) on other people. Typically these laws deny people their rights (ie. homosexuality being illegal in some areas, smoking bans, gay marriage being illegal, etc.). These laws have nothing to do with protecting people. Afterall, who are you protecting by telling me I cant have certain types of sex with my girlfriend? Are you protecting her from me? Even when she begs for it? Are you protecting me from her? What if I want it to? Or are you just protecting yourself from being made uncomfortable?
_____

You see, it comes down to not just victims, but also potential victims. For speeding and DUI, it is better to stop the problem before the pain. Just like with a child, they get punished for running toward the street, you dont wait for them to run into the street before you do something.
For 'crimes' that have no victim and no potential victim, we're just wasting money and prison space on people who should not have been arrested in the first place.

There used to be a saying that your right to swing your arms around stopped at someone else's face.
We need to get back to that way of thinking. Dont make it a crime for people to be themselves, make it a crime for people to hurt one another.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Gay marriage is not a crime, it's just not legally recognized in most jurisdictions in the Puritanical United States.

Pot smoking is not a victimless crime. For example, pot smoking costs in health care costs (shown to lead to an increased incidence of brain disease, lung disease, etc.), in lost productivity, then there's the danger to the public as most stoners drive stoned and perform jobs stoned which can endanger other people, then there's the children when stoners are stoned around their children and that puts kids at risk for harm due to distracted parents and being around the smoke. The smoke is also a danger to the people around the smoker, even in other houses or apartments when the smoke travels.

For anal sex or having sex in other than a missionary position (ex, NY's Butcher's Law), I agree that this really is a victimless crime if the sexual activity is consensual. These laws used to be used to persecute non-Christians and homosexuals. These days, they are most often used to prosecute non-consensual sex acts, including those against minors. The laws should be geared only to actual crimes.

What other "victimless" crimes are you thinking about?

Answer 4

The PC term now is "public order crime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime_(political_philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_order_crime

There used to be a wide-spread philosophy that went "no victim, no crime." It could be argued that this position is supported by the State and Federal Constitutions, and that government has no authority to enact laws contrary to this principle.
But how much is profited on the incarceration of non-violent (victimless) criminals. One would think that the people as a whole would be in an uproar as their tax money is being wasted on housing such 'criminals.' Not to mention the tax money wasted on law enforcement and the legal system related to enforcing such ridiculous laws. In my observation, law enforcement in general spends more time on victimless crimes than they do crimes where there is a real tangible victim. And people wonder why violent crime, not to mention petty crimes (robbery, vandalism, B&E, etc.) is such a problem. The police are too busy chasing revenue streams (fines, state & federal funding, 'drug war' funding, etc.) for the policy makers to accomplish any real police work, like catching real criminals.

Answer 5

A lot of people believe they AREN'T victimless--that they're somehow "gateway" crimes. If you do drugs in your home, you might then go out on a crime spree (and, to be fair, there are many addictive drugs that can lead to just that). If you have a homosexual relationship in your home, you set a "bad example" for the community, leading innocents astray.

I don't agree with 'em. But that's what they believe.

Answer 6

Trust me. Some one some where will find a victim.
Speeding is a victimless crime. Did it hurt anyone?
Could it? Sure. But it did'nt. Why isn't coughing a
crime? Did it hurt anyone? Could it?

Answer 7

what is YOUR definition of a victimless crime? running a red light in the middle of nowhere? or is it when you drive drunk and no one got hurt, so, no harm no foul? what is your definition of victim? someone who got seriously hurt or someone who just got a little inconvenienced?
i guess staying home and smoking dope there is nothing wrong with that as long as you stayed home or inside. and you do not use public services like hospitals when ill effects occur. because if you do, that creates a victim: the taxpayer.
outline your definitions a little more and see what answers you get.

Answer 8

people feel that certain "victimless crimes" are crimes because it ruins communities and societies standard of living i.e prostitution- the parties involved are both willing, but who wants prostitutes doing business on the same block as the school you child attends?

Answer 9

When laws are made they are not made for people to chose to break them. A lawless society , yes even in victimless crimes, is a failed society. The key word you are forgetting is the word crime. That is why they call them felony and misdemeanor.

Answer 10

if you are calling drugs a victemless crime that is false.
until drugs are legal there will allways be victims.
legalize drugs now and end the hipocracy.
we are all connected. the people who dubed the term victemless crimes are criminals. a crime is a crime until the act is removed from the law books. period.
by definition there can be no war on drugs-the war is on people. your question is vague so i took liberties.
leglize and set the people free.
crime pluss victemless is the same as military intelagance,
it doesn't exist.