A list of 'non-crimes'

David Gould · Jun 3, 2005

MuAndNu said:
It isn't infidelity when a married man visits a prostitute?

I did not say that. It isn't infidelity when a non-married man visits a prostitute; it isn't prostitution when a married man has sex with his neighour's wife. Prositution does not equal infidelity.

You don't believe a high percetage of "johns" aren't married or in some other way sexually attached?

I did not say that, either. I said that many johns aren't married or in some other way sexually attached. Many clients of prostitutes are single young males or single old man. Yes, a high percentage of johns would be married.

Yes. In fact, I'm arguing for both.

Okay. You are arguing for both.

If we make infidelity illegal, on what grounds should prostitution be illegal? Remember, no non-single men or women can go to prostitutes - it is illegal.

If we're going to use harm as the criterion, infidelity should be illegal. But the usual tactic is to try to deny any harm is done. I don't find that believable.

This is why I use 'balance of harm' and not 'harm'. Many actions cause harm. The question is whether it would cause more harm to make those actions illegal.

MuAndNu · Jun 3, 2005

David Gould said:
I did not say that. It isn't infidelity when a non-married man visits a prostitute; it isn't prostitution when a married man has sex with his neighour's wife. Prositution does not equal infidelity.

What you actually said is not so much the issue with me. It's the implications of what you said.

Prostitution = infidelity if the johns are married.

David Gould said:
I did not say that, either. I said that many johns aren't married or in some other way sexually attached. Many clients of prostitutes are single young males or single old man. Yes, a high percentage of johns would be married.

And to the degree johns would be married, it would be infidelity, right? It would almost certainly cause harm, right?

David Gould said:
Okay. You are arguing for both.

If we make infidelity illegal, on what grounds should prostitution be illegal? Remember, no non-single men or women can go to prostitutes - it is illegal.

So, you'd be willing to restrict prostitution to those who are not married or otherwise sexually unattached? Maybe if they brought a note from home saying it was okay?

David Gould said:
This is why I use 'balance of harm' and not 'harm'. Many actions cause harm. The question is whether it would cause more harm to make those actions illegal.

Well, I'm willing to listen to your rationale for why the balance of harm issue should lead to legalization.

But it'll have to be tomorrow. ( :sigh:

Why do I do this just before bedtime? Now I'll be up half the night trying to anticipate what you'll throw at me next.)

mepalmer3 · Jun 3, 2005

Electric Skeptic said:
After a number of posts in another thread where I put forward the viewpoint that the ONLY valid reason to make an act illegal is if it harms someone other than the performer of the act (ie., moral opinions about the act are completely irrelevant), here's a list of things currently illegal in some states of the US, Australia, the UK, and/or Canada that I believe should not be, as they are illegal for purely moral reasons:

- prostitution
- gambling
- recreational drug use
- post-pubescent adolescent sexual activity
- public nudity
- blasphemy
- sexual acts between consenting adults (eg., oral sex, sodomy)
- inappropriate contentography

In any reasonable society, all of the above things would be legal (IMO). Opinions about the morality of the acts are completely irrelevant to their legality (or should be).

Again, all laws are made for moral reasons. Morality means that some behavior is good/bad, better/worse, right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable. The state, when it imposes laws, by definition imposes A standard of morality. You can't just pretend like some laws are meant to restrict human behavior and others aren't. They are ALL based on someone or somegroups morality.

But regardless of that... I think that was already agreed upon in the other thread. So you are saying that there should be laws that restrict our freedoms if it prevents harm, right? So let me go the opposite way and suggest some things that should become illegal that directly lead to harm: (I don't really believe these should be illegal, I'm just pointing out what the OP's basis for law leads us to make illegal).

- lying
- gossip
- saying cruel things to a spouse, child, or any person
- divorce
- firing a weapon at another person
- self-defense (actually sort of is in some states though)
- vulgar language
- any taxes that are used for charity or science endeavors

All of these are very widely known to cause either physical, emotional, financial, or psychological harm to others. In fact I would wager that lying, gossip, and divorce hurt a WHOLE lot more people than killing, raping, and some of the other harmful crimes.

marblehead · Jun 3, 2005

I agree with the list, especially on drug use.
When something isn't a crime in the meaning that it doesn't harm someone else, but the government makes it a crime, then criminals are created.

Non-violent drug offenders make up a large chunk of the U.S. prison population. So many people are busted just for using or buying drugs, which isn't harming anyone if they do it responsibly, and go to prison where if they weren't hardened criminals before, they will very likely end up that way.

The United States goverment seems to be making things worse by creating criminals out of people who haved harmed no one by commiting these acts.

The more things you make illegal, the more criminals there will be.
I think that in a truly free country people should be able to do these things as long as they are harming no one.
If it doesn't hurt you, then what do you care?
I also don't think that just because something offends you means that it constitutes harm.

David Gould · Jun 3, 2005

MuAndNu said:
What you actually said is not so much the issue with me. It's the implications of what you said.

Prostitution = infidelity if the johns are married.

And to the degree johns would be married, it would be infidelity, right? It would almost certainly cause harm, right?

Yes.

So, you'd be willing to restrict prostitution to those who are not married or otherwise sexually unattached? Maybe if they brought a note from home saying it was okay?

Perhaps. I would need to examine the balance of harm issue.

Well, I'm willing to listen to your rationale for why the balance of harm issue should lead to legalization.

But it'll have to be tomorrow. ( Why do I do this just before bedtime? Now I'll be up half the night trying to anticipate what you'll throw at me next.)

Fair enough. As it is the weekend for me, I will give my rationalisation now.

There are a number of factors that we need to consider when dealing with making something illegal.

The first is the obvious one: will making activity X illegal bring about the situation we want?

In this instance, making adultery illegal is obviously an attempt to reduce the amount of adultery that occurs.

This would only happen, in my view, if people were convinced that there was a reasonable likelihood of getting caught and convicted and if there were penalties sufficient to deter people from doing it. (For example, a $100 fine would not be much of a deterent.)

The getting caught and convicted one is much more difficult to see. If adultery was illegal and was the subject of sufficient penalties to deter people from doing it, no-one would ever confess to it. Both of the parties to the adultery stand to lose if they confess. Thus, the only way we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that adultery occurred is to catch them in the act of sexual intercourse. (Another alternative in the case of a pregnancy might be a paternity DNA analysis).

To catch people in the act of adultery would require active participation by the public in informing on their friends and neighbours, as monitoring this by law enforcement authorities would be impossible.

To me, already there are big harm implications here.

There are other issues: the monetary cost of running court cases, for example, along with the necessity to demonstrate that someone is in a relationship. If, for example, the man says that he was just having casual sex with a friend on numerous occassions, but the women says that she is the man's girlfriend, who is right?

There are further problems in that such legal action, if it involves significant punishment, may harm the children of perpetrators more than a simple break-up. After all, the break-up and suffering will occur in any case. And then they have less financial and emotional support, given the significant fine and/or prison term their mother or father faces.

That is for starters. Have fun.

MidnightBlue · Jun 3, 2005

David Gould said:
If adultery was illegal

Where I live, adultery actually is illegal. It's rarely prosecuted, and then only on the complaint of the offended spouse. The penalty is usually comparable to what you'd pay for a speeding ticket.

But I believe that none of the acts listed by Electric Skeptic ought to be illegal, and no one has even come close to showing why they should be.

It is said (I've never bothered to verify it) that in my city there is a law on the books making it illegal to wear red on Main Street. No doubt there were people at the time that law was passed (if indeed it was) who believed they and the community were "harmed" by people wearing red on Main Street -- just as there are people now who believe they are "harmed" by having other people smoke pot, or by homosexuals kissing, or by public nudity, or by any number of things that are none of any rational person's concern.

One claim is as valid as another; that is to say, nobody is harmed by somebody else's doing something they find distasteful, immoral, or ill-advised.

As Fran Lebowitz says, going out in public means being exposed to the unpleasant behavior of other people. "If you can't stand the heat, get back in the kitchen."

Resounding · Jun 3, 2005

mepalmer3 said:
...... self-defense...

Self defence is a natural instinct. Would that not mean that it is a God-given gift, similar to our conscience and therefore OK with God?
Also, would it not be considered as 'protecting God's temple' ?

I think that it is only when people misuse the plea of self defence in court or that they defend themselves more than they have to (ie to the extent that their actions are classed as provoked assault) that self defence is wrong.

£amb · Jun 3, 2005

Electric Skeptic said:
No, you explain how they DO harm someone.

You seem to miss the point. Morality is completely irrelevant. Whether an act is morally good or bad has nothing to do with whether or not it should be illegal.

Oh, I understand now. You state a comment and then when anybody answers...you go into a circular debate. Instead of explaining something...you shove the questions back on someone else. There is a point when those things can harm someone...what is your standard when something is harmful. I mean, we are going by your standard of what is "okay"...right? Please explain when there's a possibility that these things are harmful. So only when someone is physically hurt then someone is truly harmed? What if someone picked up a disease from a prositute...would that be considered physical harmful? What if someone gets beaten on for a bad gambling experience...would that be considered a physical harm? What if someone has a bad drug experience (I know people that have)...and nearly kill themselves...is that a pysical harm? This in reality can happen...and has. So when it becomes harmful...is it then out-lawed?

Quijote · Jun 3, 2005

Electric Skeptic said:
Quijote, you make a number of specific claims regarding the acts involved and how they are harmful, which I'll address in a moment. However, I don't think you understand me when I say that these things aren't harmful 'per se'. That means in and of themselves they aren't harmful. Sure, they CAN lead to harm, but so can just about anything. The question is whether or not the acts in and of themselves are harmful. For example, is driving harmful? I'd say no, driving is not harmful per se - but by your logic, it IS harmful, because it can lead to accidents, death, etc. That doesn't make driving a bad thing, or something that should be outlawed...it merely means that there are possible effects or consequences of driving that should be avoided. The same is true of the possible bad effects or consequences of any act. The fact that an act does have possible bad effects or consequences doesn't make that act bad per se.

This is how I see/understand it: Using your example, of course driving a car is not harmful in and of itself, but driving a car under the influece of alcohol and/or drugs is. The sexual act, in and of itself, is not harmful, but, IMHO, prostitution, adultery, homosexual acts, are harmful in the same way driving a car under the influece of alcohol/drugs is harmful: it is the wrong thing to do, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time.

cheers

mepalmer3 · Jun 3, 2005

Resounding said:
Self defence is a natural instinct. Would that not mean that it is a God-given gift, similar to our conscience and therefore OK with God?
Also, would it not be considered as 'protecting God's temple' ?

I think that it is only when people misuse the plea of self defence in court or that they defend themselves more than they have to (ie to the extent that their actions are classed as provoked assault) that self defence is wrong.

Yes most of us think "self-defense" is a morally good thing. I'm trying to point out that the criteria, "harming another person", is not necessarily the best basis for laws.

ChristianCenturion · Jun 3, 2005

Electric Skeptic said:
After a number of posts in another thread where I put forward the viewpoint that the ONLY valid reason to make an act illegal is if it harms someone other than the performer of the act (ie., moral opinions about the act are completely irrelevant), here's a list of things currently illegal in some states of the US, Australia, the UK, and/or Canada that I believe should not be, as they are illegal for purely moral reasons:

- prostitution
- gambling
- recreational drug use
- post-pubescent adolescent sexual activity
- public nudity
- blasphemy
- sexual acts between consenting adults (eg., oral sex, sodomy)
- inappropriate contentography

In any reasonable society, all of the above things would be legal (IMO). Opinions about the morality of the acts are completely irrelevant to their legality (or should be).

It is odd to me when I see things such as this:
"You say it is harmful, but I declare it as not harmful; therefore, it is not harmful."

Reason is like that... it let's you see the obvious fallacy placed in the statement.

MuAndNu · Jun 3, 2005

David Gould said:
Fair enough. As it is the weekend for me, I will give my rationalisation now.

There are a number of factors that we need to consider when dealing with making something illegal.

The first is the obvious one: will making activity X illegal bring about the situation we want?

In this instance, making adultery illegal is obviously an attempt to reduce the amount of adultery that occurs.

This would only happen, in my view, if people were convinced that there was a reasonable likelihood of getting caught and convicted and if there were penalties sufficient to deter people from doing it. (For example, a $100 fine would not be much of a deterent.)

The getting caught and convicted one is much more difficult to see. If adultery was illegal and was the subject of sufficient penalties to deter people from doing it, no-one would ever confess to it. Both of the parties to the adultery stand to lose if they confess. Thus, the only way we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that adultery occurred is to catch them in the act of sexual intercourse. (Another alternative in the case of a pregnancy might be a paternity DNA analysis).

To catch people in the act of adultery would require active participation by the public in informing on their friends and neighbours, as monitoring this by law enforcement authorities would be impossible.

To me, already there are big harm implications here.

There are other issues: the monetary cost of running court cases, for example, along with the necessity to demonstrate that someone is in a relationship. If, for example, the man says that he was just having casual sex with a friend on numerous occassions, but the women says that she is the man's girlfriend, who is right?

There are further problems in that such legal action, if it involves significant punishment, may harm the children of perpetrators more than a simple break-up. After all, the break-up and suffering will occur in any case. And then they have less financial and emotional support, given the significant fine and/or prison term their mother or father faces.

That is for starters. Have fun.

I composed two long responses, but trashed them both. The truth is, I'm a little conflicted about this myself.

Should such things as enforcability ultimately decide for or against legalization? Sometimes the object is just to send a message. It's to say, "We as a society frown on that kind of activity." And there are usually good reasons for the frown.

I think in a perfect world, reason would guide us unfailingly to the right decision. It's not a perfect world. The pro and con sides of any issue charge the other with being unreasonable. There are too many biases that affect our thinking.

Reason and experience. Those should be the primary considerations. Reason alone, ignoring the lessons of the past, is just conjecture. It's not a good foundation for law. Reason based on long societal experience is what's needed. As a rule, embrace received wisdom. When a tenet proves itself unwise, throw it out.

And that's not going to be perfect either. I don't see a perfect solution.

Charlie V · Jun 4, 2005

mepalmer3 said:
Again, all laws are made for moral reasons.

Okay.

What's the moral reason that says, if I park on Main Street I'm morally obliged to put a quarter in a big round thing sticking up out of the ground?

Charlie

James T · Jun 4, 2005

mepalmer3 said:
Again, all laws are made for moral reasons.

Staggering, I missed this blatant absurdity before. And I suppose there is a moral reason why some countries require you drive on the left and others on the right.

ChristianCenturion · Jun 4, 2005

James T said:
Staggering, I missed this blatant absurdity before. And I suppose there is a moral reason why some countries require you drive on the left and others on the right.

Ummm... because it brings order instead of chaos. The false premise that countries differ do not negate the fact that they have consistency within themselves. :doh:

ChristianCenturion · Jun 4, 2005

Charlie V said:
Okay.

What's the moral reason that says, if I park on Main Street I'm morally obliged to put a quarter in a big round thing sticking up out of the ground?

Charlie

Certain high traffic areas require more policing to ensure order is maintained. By paying for the use of said area, you are helping fund the order maintained in that more demanding region.
Glad I could help.

lawtonfogle · Jun 4, 2005

Electric Skeptic said:
After a number of posts in another thread where I put forward the viewpoint that the ONLY valid reason to make an act illegal is if it harms someone other than the performer of the act (ie., moral opinions about the act are completely irrelevant), here's a list of things currently illegal in some states of the US, Australia, the UK, and/or Canada that I believe should not be, as they are illegal for purely moral reasons:

- prostitution-one of the ways STDs are transfered
- gambling-it does prove to be a finacil burden on society, and by doing such does harm others, if not physically
- recreational drug use-drugs... not harm other... don't go together. Any use of drugs can cause harm. Even if it is a might, so is shooting a machinegun at a populated street.
- post-pubescent adolescent sexual activity- im guessing this is dealing with minors. This has been proven to show cases of mental and physical and emotional health problems that can affect society, like say the 15 yearold who lives on wealfare the rest of her life since she has a baby and cannot get a well paying job.
- public nudity- this would not be that bad if we were use to this, but instead we are not. So lets say someone is driving down the road and they see a street full of people who wear no clothes, so his attention is taking away from driving and he is now a danger to others.
- blasphemy- as against God, please clear this one up some
- sexual acts between consenting adults (eg., oral sex, sodomy)- this is illegal, we if there married no problem, if not, then they may spread STD even more
- inappropriate contentography- makes women seen a objects to please men, not a people

In any reasonable society, all of the above things would be legal (IMO). Opinions about the morality of the acts are completely irrelevant to their legality (or should be).

now i must enter a message down here so it will post, oh look, i just did, and theres another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and my fingers are starting to hurt.

lawtonfogle · Jun 4, 2005

James T said:
Staggering, I missed this blatant absurdity before. And I suppose there is a moral reason why some countries require you drive on the left and others on the right.

well in America, if we drove on the wrong side of the road, we would hurt others.

any ways, when you sign to get a drivers license, you sign saying you will obey the laws, so if you don't like them, then do not sign. If you say 'They have no right to force rules one me like that', then you must understand that by living in America, you say you will follow our law. If you don't like that, then don't live in
America. If you then say 'they have no right to tell me where i can and can not live', then live in america, but people can then perform illegal actions against you and not get in trouble unless they violate the rights of all humans, which is to live and ect. but then you are expected to live by the rights of all humans and expect their rights, so if you do not want to, move to somewhere where they do not grant those laws. you will probally be killed shortly, but who cares over there. If you instead stay but break those rights of other people, you forfeit your own rights, and so are killed, being said you do not have the right to live.

You follow rules so you can be protected.

DJ_Ghost · Jun 4, 2005

Quijote said:
Prostitution - harms the family of the man who might be cheating on his wife; harms the woman making herself available as an "object" and not a "subject"; might infect one either the woman or man.

What if the user of the service is single and both use protection?

Quijote said:
Gambling - can harm the gamblers finance, thus bringing him/his family to bankruptcy and making him/his family a burden to society.

it is not for the state to act as a nanny. Shopping addiction and overusing your credit cards can harm the finances as well, at what point does state responsibility stop and personal responsibility begin? personally I dont want to live in a nanny state, I should be able to make decisions about my own life. (Actually I never gamble, but I should be able to if I so chose).

Quijote said:
drug use - recreational or not, it can lead to accidents while driving, operating machinery, etc...

Using that argument it should be operating machinery or vehicles whilst under the effects of intoxicating substances that should be illegal and not the use of those substances.

Quijote said:
post pubescent sexual activity - might cause unwanted pregnancies; might spread veneral diseases; might affect the mental growth of the parties involved.

I am with you on this one.

Quijote said:
Public nudity - uhmm...most of us are plenty unatractive with clothes on

Agreed, but its no reason to make public nudity a crime.

Quijote said:
blasphemy - imposes others incorrect uses of words on what I am teaching my kids

I am not certain where this is illegal in the west, can anyone enlighten me?

Quijote said:
sexual acts between consenting adults - as long as it is nothing unnatural (excluding adultery and prostitution)

As long as it is between consenting adults I dont see it is nay of the states business, regardless of it being natural or unnatural (I am not even certain those terms are relevant in this instance, who defines what is natural and what is not?).

Quijote said:
inappropriate contentography - encourages men to look at women (possibly treat them) as objects and not subjects.

I am not much of a fan of inappropriate contentography myself, but I am not exactly convinced of this argument either. I think there are a proportion of men that are going to treat women that way anyway. I must admit I am uncertain about where I stand on this issue. I know a surprising number of women that are quite keen on a bit of inappropriate content in the right circumstances.

Ghost

DJ_Ghost · Jun 4, 2005

There seems to be rather a lot of posts I would like to respond to hear so forgive me if I do it in one long post rather than cluttering up the thread with many smaller ones.

Forest said:
Why? Why should that be the standard for a law?

Well, what other standards for legislation do you feel are justifiable and why?

Lifesaver said:
Many people consider themselves harmed by the fact that people use drugs. Many others consider themselves harmed when they are subjected to the scene of homosexuals kissing and making out publicly.
It changes them for the worse (produces disgust, fear, pain, etc in them).

Yes and their are people who consider the sight of me dressed to go DJ the Goth club i run is in some way harmful to them, or as you point out...

Lifesaver said:
There are people to whom Christians saying what they believe in is harmful. These persons are offended, disgusted, afraid, etc of Christians.

Do we then outlaw Goths and Christians or do we have some other means by which we calculate actual societal harm done by an act?

XianJedi said:
Fine - why should the state protect it's members?

Because in so doing it protects itself.

mepalmer3 said:
Again, all laws are made for moral reasons. Morality means that some behavior is good/bad, better/worse, right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable. The state, when it imposes laws, by definition imposes A standard of morality. You can't just pretend like some laws are meant to restrict human behavior and others aren't. They are ALL based on someone or somegroups morality.

I disagree. Laws do not necessarily have to be based on some ones morality but on the self interest of the state that enacts those laws.

mepalmer3 said:
All of these are very widely known to cause either physical, emotional, financial, or psychological harm to others. In fact I would wager that lying, gossip, and divorce hurt a WHOLE lot more people than killing, raping, and some of the other harmful crimes.

True but an interesting question is which of those actually harm the state and the social cohesion of the state?

Ghost

A list of 'non-crimes'

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Practical Atheist

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

June Carter, pray for us!

Resounding

Guest

£amb

Guest

a.k.a Mr. Q

Well-Known Member

Veteran / Tuebor

Practical Atheist

Senior Veteran

ex nihil nihilio fit

Veteran / Tuebor

Veteran / Tuebor

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

Trad Goth

Trad Goth

Similar threads