There is no such thing as victimless crime. Do you agree?

Question

I really need to know what is this means...,,,cAuz im confuse......

Answer 1

No i do not agree.

Answer 2

What this refers to is the fact that some crimes are widely perceived as having a clear victim (e.g. violent offences, burglary in people's homes, theft of personal property) whereas others are seen by some as being "victimless". Examples of so-called victimless crimes include shoplifting, burglary in commercial premesis, benefit and other frauds, driving while disqualified, etc.

Of course, there is no such thing as a victimless crime - there is just a distinction between those which ahve a direct, identifiable victim, and those whose victims are an organisation, company or society in general. The question to ask in identifying victims is, "who is negatively affected by this crime?" Therefore, the managers and owners of a shop might be the victims of shoplifting, but so might the legitimate customers who pay higher prices to cover the shop's rising insurance. The person who drives without a licence might not have hurt anyone on this occasion, but has the potential to cause a great deal of harm and distress if s/he is involved in an accident and the injured party in unable to get insurance payouts.

Answer 3

The traditional interpretation of a victimless crime is one that violates the rights of no-one with the possible exception of the person committing the crime. On these terms there are many. Although you can make the case that drug offences and the like eventually have victims, there are certainly a lot of anachronistic laws that don't. For example, it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle through a certain city without someone walking in front waving a flag - a throwback law from the days of horse travel that was never repealed. Hard to think of a victim when this one is broken!

Answer 4

It all depends on your defination of a crime, if you class the breach of any law enforced by the police a crime, then there are numerous crimes within the road traffic act etc which could be victimless. If you are refering solely to inditable crimes then almost evey crime would need a victim. However a person could be found guilty of MURDER where no body is found, whilst the evidence would suggest there was a victim, could it be known with 100% certainity?

Answer 5

I seem to remember a case to do with I think Guiness ( I could be wrong here) in which there was some sort of fiddle on shares and profits. The actual actions were illegal but those said to be defrauded were actually better off. I f my memory is correct yes there can be a victimless crime but I don't think we will see another one for about 70 years

Answer 6

In a democracy, we elect law makers and give them the power to enact laws on our behalf.

We accept the need for such laws as the majority wish to live safely, in an ordered society, protected by the law.

So every time one of us breaks a law, that offers a challenge to our society, saying "I no longer accept the will of the majority". This suggests that in some sense, every one of us is a victim whenever anyone commits a crime, because every crime undermines the status quo.

Answer 7

A victimless crime is something in which everyone involved wants to be.

Prostitution is the best example. Who is the victim? Both are getting what they want out of it.

Answer 8

The two crimes most associtated with being "victimless" are drugs and prostitution. The argument is because it is voluntary, it is not a crime.

The biggest argument against it is that it does effect others people. Prostitues often carry disease. They also attract crime, and often use drugs themselves.

Drug abusers often resort to crime to support thier habits. The more expensive the drug habit, the more crime he needs to commit to support that habit.

Gambling is another "victimless" crime, but many people ruin their lives, and the lives of their family, by gambling excessively. They may also turn to crime to support their habit.

Answer 9

It means that even if there is no direct victim of a crime (like in offences where nobody directly suffers)

because at the end of the day we all have to suffer the consequences of the raising crime rates, the money it takes to investigate.

society suffers

Answer 10

Its impossible to have a crime with out a victim.. that is a saying made up by insurance companies and police/courts that are over extended and short of funds and manpower

Answer 11

It means that every crime has at least one victim. If somebody defrauds a company, the shareholders are victims. If somebody daubs graffiti all over a wall, the ratepayers are victims because their money pays to clean it up. If you copy a CD illegally, the artist is a victim because s/he doesn't get his/her royalties. Every crime has victims.