Victimless crimes?

[Steezie]

Is there such a thing as a victimless crime?

If not, why not?

 

[Lynden1000]

That's an issue that delves into semantics. One could claim that *no* act is without an affect on *somebody*. But whether its enough to warrant a claim of "victim" is a different story.

In some states bingo and oral sex are crimes. They seem pretty victimless to me.

I'm not sure about bingo and oral sex simultaneously though..that might be a crime everywhere

 

[The Nihilist]

Bingo and oral sex don't have victims, they have winners.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Of course, where the nanny state rears its ugly head. Examples include blue laws, laws regualting private sexual acts, censorship, overregulation, various liquor laws enacted by prohibitionists, etc.

 

[Skaloop]

According to The Simpsons (Nelson, specifically) "Shoplifting is a victimless crime. Like punchin' someone in the dark!"

But more seriously, in addition to the things mentioned above that make crimes of activities between two consenting adults, there are also crimes that we'd all agree are against the law, even though there is no victim.

Speeding, for example. Or driving under the influence. I could blast through a school zone at 90 mph after a pint of vodka, and it's a crime even if I don't hit or harm anyone. The potential is there, but there is no victim. Not that I'd do that, of course.

 

[Gomez]

Is there such a thing as a victimless crime?

If not, why not?

Yes, there is. Smoking marijuana being a major one.

 

[The Nihilist]

According to The Simpsons (Nelson, specifically) "Shoplifting is a victimless crime. Like punchin' someone in the dark!"

But more seriously, in addition to the things mentioned above that make crimes of activities between two consenting adults, there are also crimes that we'd all agree are against the law, even though there is no victim.

Speeding, for example. Or driving under the influence. I could blast through a school zone at 90 mph after a pint of vodka, and it's a crime even if I don't hit or harm anyone. The potential is there, but there is no victim. Not that I'd do that, of course.

Your example doesn't really relate to your claim. Speeding and drinking and driving are illegal because they're dangerous, and have a real potential to become crimes full of victims. You're going to need an example of a crime without a reasonable danger of victimizing someone to get what you want, like smoking weed, or, I dunno, blasphemy.

 

[suzybeezy]

Just a reminder when posting in this thread - please keep in mind:

3.2 Obscene, Vulgar, Racist, Sexually Explicit or Illegal Posts and Links Prohibited

You will not make posts, attach or link to images, or post links to web pages that are obscene, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit or graphic, or illegal.

 

[katautumn]

I guess it depends on what the crime is. I mean, if it's one of those old crimes still on the books that say it's illegal for a man to not tip his hat to a lady in public, I think it's safe to say there wouldn't necessarily be any women feeling victimized these days if the man didn't tip his hat to her; however, most of your modern-day, commonly applied laws and crimes have a victim. I guess you just have to look at it with a very wide angle lens. While smoking marijuana typically does not victimize anyone, there is the rare exception that there is a person who takes food out of their children's mouths to buy pot. In that situation, the children would actually be the victims as an extension of their parent's transgression of the law. Just like it's the law that you must stop at a red light. While most violations of traffic laws are simply that - violations and not crimes - failing to stop at a red light can yield tragic conesequences at which point the person's minor violation lead to a crime and there would be a victim or victims.

Most crimes, though, have obvious victims - theft, murder, rape, assault, etc.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Crimes against natural law always at least victimize the perpetrator.

Human law, however, has no overall criteria for coming into existence and thus can become arbitrary. In those cases neutral or moral acts can become crimes, and I guess you could call them "victimless crimes."

 

[flicka]

One of my friends accidental let her drivers license expire but she continued driving for a couple weeks before she got it renewed. Technically she was breaking the law..but was it a crime? Was there a victim? No.

There is a difference between breaking the law and committing a crime, maybe that difference includes a victim.

 

[The Nihilist]

Crimes against natural law always at least victimize the perpetrator.

Human law, however, has no overall criteria for coming into existence and thus can become arbitrary. In those cases neutral or moral acts can become crimes, and I guess you could call them "victimless crimes."

Can you explain exactly what it is you mean by "natural law?" Because I'm pretty sure that it's made up.

 

[Ave Maria]

No, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. It always affects somebody somehow even if the person that it affects is the person that committed the crime. And even if the effects are not obvious, you should understand the spiritual effects of committing a crime.

 

[in2Nas]

No, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. It always affects somebody somehow even if the person that it affects is the person that committed the crime. And even if the effects are not obvious, you should understand the spiritual effects of committing a crime.

This train of thought is too absolute. For one, just because someone or something is affected or altered by the crime does not immediately that make thing a victim. Remember, crimes are violations of human laws, which can be made for any number of specific reasons and sometimes are based on personal beliefs, preferences or even pet peeves. Some cities have laws that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays within the city limits. So if I wanted to get my buzz on and bought liquor illegally who would be the victim here? Even if in some roundabout, philosophical way there was a victim here...I'd just drive outside the city limits and by the alcohol legally and achieve the same results.

 

[Ave Maria]

This train of thought is too absolute. For one, just because someone or something is affected or altered by the crime does not immediately that make thing a victim. Remember, crimes are violations of human laws, which can be made for any number of specific reasons and sometimes are based on personal beliefs, preferences or even pet peeves. Some cities have laws that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays within the city limits. So if I wanted to get my buzz on and bought liquor illegally who would be the victim here? Even if in some roundabout, philosophical way there was a victim here...I'd just drive outside the city limits and by the alcohol legally and achieve the same results.

You do have a good point. Perhaps I should revise my thinking on this issue.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Can you explain exactly what it is you mean by "natural law?" Because I'm pretty sure that it's made up.

For the purposes of this conversation you can probably sub in "offenses against objective morality." Not quite the same, but it will work without derailing everything.

What I wanted to say was simply the following: if laws have no criteria for their creation, then of course we can't say anything about them, there isn't anything that needs to be consistent across all laws. The question then only becomes interesting if you rephrase it to something like "should victimless crimes be immoral?" to which I answer something along the following: All crimes should be immoral, and everything immoral harms the person doing it, so in that sense there really aren't any victimless crimes.

 

[Merlin]

Kinda an oxymoron.
victimless crime

 

[vonKarma]

This question always makes me think. Hmm... what exactly do you consider "victimless", something with a low probability of anybody being seriously harmed/killed by the act? Then most likely pot can't be considered a victimless crime, considering the damages it does to your own body. The victim, in that case, would be the smoker.

 

[The Nihilist]

For the purposes of this conversation you can probably sub in "offenses against objective morality." Not quite the same, but it will work without derailing everything.

What I wanted to say was simply the following: if laws have no criteria for their creation, then of course we can't say anything about them, there isn't anything that needs to be consistent across all laws. The question then only becomes interesting if you rephrase it to something like "should victimless crimes be immoral?" to which I answer something along the following: All crimes should be immoral, and everything immoral harms the person doing it, so in that sense there really aren't any victimless crimes.

In what way do you think that everything immoral harms the person doing it? Neoplatonism will be rejected out of hand. Do you think that only that which harms the person doing it is immoral? I'm just not all that certain what you're talking about.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If you take 'crime' to mean 'transgression of human law', then yes, you can have victimless crimes. But should human legal systems not try to only illegalise those objectionable acts which have victims? For example, if I smoke marijuana on my own or with consenting friends, then there is no victim, so why should my actions be illegal?

Personally, I define a crime with respect to victims, suffering, and harm; that is, a crime is any act that causes undue or unnecessary suffering to any animal (basically the Golden Rule, with a 'necessity' qualifier).
It would be impracticle to forbid harming plants and other non-animal life.