No victim, no crime?

[ATF Consumer]

I am a firm believer in this principle...what say you?

Every Crime Needs a Victim by Laurence M. Vance

 

[neraph]

Just as every husband needs a wife, every child needs a parent, and every teacher needs a pupil, so every crime needs a victim. Not a potential victim or possible victim or a supposed victim, but an actual victim.

While I do agree with him on the matter that far more things are legislated than should be, I would like to point out that a suicide bomber doesn't have any victims until there's nobody left to punish.

 

[ATF Consumer]

While I do agree with him on the matter that far more things are legislated than should be, I would like to point out that a suicide bomber doesn't have any victims until there's nobody left to punish.

There are some things that just cannot be controlled, unless you believe it is more important to take away our liberties to keep us all safe.

 

[CombatVet]

I didn't follow the link, but I think somethings like speed limits are needed. Speeding doesn't have a victim, but causing an accident does.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I didn't follow the link, but I think somethings like speed limits are needed. Speeding doesn't have a victim, but causing an accident does.

Are you saying that you obey the limit at all times?
Make everyone accountable for their actions without going light on the punishment. No early parole for good behavior...what does good behavior have to do with the crime they committed and how does their victim benefit?
If punishment is strong enough, it will deter speeding simply by knowing the consequences.

 

[jsharmon7]

I'd be interested in hearing some examples of "victimless crimes." I don't doubt they're out there but most things people think of as "victimless" are only victimless in a direct sense. Somewhere down the line someone deals with it.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I'd be interested in hearing some examples of "victimless crimes." I don't doubt they're out there but most things people think of as "victimless" are only victimless in a direct sense. Somewhere down the line someone deals with it.

Public intoxication

 

[jsharmon7]

Public intoxication

I agree with this one, but it'll only cause the police to enforce other laws instead. Being drunk in public isn't hurting anyone until the drunk becomes obnoxious and harasses people, destroys property, hurts themselves, or starts a fight. Most officers probably aren't going to hassle a guy who is drunk in public unless he's causing trouble anyway, discretion is a big part of police work.

 

[Lex Concord]

I agree with this one, but it'll only cause the police to enforce other laws instead. Being drunk in public isn't hurting anyone until the drunk becomes obnoxious and harasses people, destroys property, hurts themselves, or starts a fight. Most officers probably aren't going to hassle a guy who is drunk in public unless he's causing trouble anyway, discretion is a big part of police work.

And some cops will throw a PI at you for seeing you with a longneck on your front porch...in their discretion.

 

[jsharmon7]

And some cops will throw a PI at you for seeing you with a longneck on your front porch...in their discretion.

Do you have knowledge of this happening? I'd love to see an officer's report on this arrest, it would be thrown out quickly I'd guess. I work in a small town and we handle things a little more casually, I don't think I'd ever see this. It seems like you're suggesting changing the laws to protect against overzealous officers rather than changing the officers?

 

[ATF Consumer]

I agree with this one, but it'll only cause the police to enforce other laws instead. Being drunk in public isn't hurting anyone until the drunk becomes obnoxious and harasses people, destroys property, hurts themselves, or starts a fight. Most officers probably aren't going to hassle a guy who is drunk in public unless he's causing trouble anyway, discretion is a big part of police work.

Again, make that obnoxious drunk accountable for his actions, pay for damage and so on...no need to penalize others that can control themselves while being drunk. If victim-less crimes are removed from being crimes, enforcing other laws would be what we would want the police to do anyway...right?

 

[jsharmon7]

Again, make that obnoxious drunk accountable for his actions, pay for damage and so on...no need to penalize others that can control themselves while being drunk. If victim-less crimes are removed from being crimes, enforcing other laws would be what we would want the police to do anyway...right?

I understand what you're saying and I can agree with you. My question is how far we let it go. I don't think many would argue that being drunk in public leads to a high likelihood of causing trouble, or at least higher likelihood than being sober. So we say that we can't take action against someone for being in a condition that has a higher likelihood of causing trouble because they may behave like a perfect gentleman and we don't want to punish that guy. Okay, I get that. But should we get rid of drunk driving laws as well on the same principle? I sure don't want drunk people driving around while I'm on the road where my only hope is that they're the "responsible" drunk drivers. I don't think my family will feel better about me being dead because the guy is going to be punished for it. I'd rather the police be on the lookout for drunk drivers so maybe it can be prevented rather than waiting for something to happen. If there is a proven higher likelihood of a certain behavior causing crime or other damages than I'm all for outlawing it.

This is my issue with speed limits as well. It's all well and good that we hold people accountable when their actions cause damage to others, but how do we set that standard? If a guy is driving 120 mph down a residential street and kills a kid at the bus stop, he should be punished. What if he was going 40 mph? What if he was going 20 mph? Does he have a higher likelihood of having an accident at 120 mph or 20 mph? How would you decide who to punish or not punish without some objective number to guide you? I'd rather the law be on the books and the police have the power of discretion. I define discretion as common sense.

 

[mrjarrell]

I am a firm believer in this principle...what say you?

Every Crime Needs a Victim by Laurence M. Vance

I say the same thing. A crime needs a victim or it's not a crime. If you damage. steal or destroy someones property, there's a crime. Same applies to their person. If you harm yourself, that's just stupid, but it's not a crime. Unfortunately, logic and reason don't rule in this country, so we have illegitimate laws all over the place.

 

[mrjarrell]

I didn't follow the link, but I think somethings like speed limits are needed. Speeding doesn't have a victim, but causing an accident does.

If speeding were actually dangerous then there'd be no Formula 1 or NASCAR drivers alive today. I've driven at high speeds under many conditions and never had an accident caused due to speed.

 

[ATF Consumer]

But should we get rid of drunk driving laws as well on the same principle? I sure don't want drunk people driving around while I'm on the road where my only hope is that they're the "responsible" drunk drivers. I don't think my family will feel better about me being dead because the guy is going to be punished for it. I'd rather the police be on the lookout for drunk drivers so maybe it can be prevented rather than waiting for something to happen. If there is a proven higher likelihood of a certain behavior causing crime or other damages than I'm all for outlawing it.

question for you...has the drunk driving laws really worked? Do people obey it?
How many repeat offenders are there? The problem is that all we do is slap these individuals on the hand for such offenses, even when damage or a victim is involved. The entire system is weak on punishment, so most don't see the consequences being all that harsh, thus we have the continued problems of the system working against itself. If drunk driving is against the law, then why are bars allowed to operate with parking lot space for their customers? Shouldn't that be outlawed to reduce the amount of drunk driving? If the system is to be fixed, it needs to be completely where this type of action cannot even occur, but all we ever do is put a bandage on it and perpetuate the problem. Injuring someone or property while drunk should be looked at no different than doing the same with a gun. Does it really matter what the criminals state of sobriety is for the victim or property?

This is my issue with speed limits as well. It's all well and good that we hold people accountable when their actions cause damage to others, but how do we set that standard? If a guy is driving 120 mph down a residential street and kills a kid at the bus stop, he should be punished. What if he was going 40 mph? What if he was going 20 mph? Does he have a higher likelihood of having an accident at 120 mph or 20 mph? How would you decide who to punish or not punish without some objective number to guide you? I'd rather the law be on the books and the police have the power of discretion. I define discretion as common sense.

Speed should not have anything to do it...damage to person or property is all that should matter. I really don't care what level of sobriety or how fast someone is driving...it is the punishment for the damage that should count...all the other factors are reason to lesson the punishment and that is wrong in my book.

 

[Benny]

For the most part, I agree, but there are exceptions.

 

[Armed Eastsider]

Selling alcohol on a Sunday is a crime for certain establishments. I believe so is selling a car (for a dealer).

Would somebody please tell me who the victim is.

 

[jsharmon7]

question for you...has the drunk driving laws really worked? Do people obey it?
How many repeat offenders are there? The problem is that all we do is slap these individuals on the hand for such offenses, even when damage or a victim is involved. The entire system is weak on punishment, so most don't see the consequences being all that harsh, thus we have the continued problems of the system working against itself. If drunk driving is against the law, then why are bars allowed to operate with parking lot space for their customers? Shouldn't that be outlawed to reduce the amount of drunk driving? If the system is to be fixed, it needs to be completely where this type of action cannot even occur, but all we ever do is put a bandage on it and perpetuate the problem. Injuring someone or property while drunk should be looked at no different than doing the same with a gun. Does it really matter what the criminals state of sobriety is for the victim or property?

If I'm misunderstanding what you're saying please correct me. It sounds like you're advocating tougher penalties for things that are already occurring. You're absolutely correct that people continue to drive drunk, and I'd like to see stiffer penalties. There will always be those who don't care about the consequences, but stiffer penalties reduce that number. As far as parking spaces at bars, there is a difference between drunk driving and having a beer and driving home. This goes back to the point Lex made about an officer arresting someone for public intox for having an open beer on their porch. That doesn't fit the bill for public intox and it shouldn't be enforced as such. If something like that actually happened then I hope the prosecutor trashed it and had a chat with the officer about it.

Speed should not have anything to do it...damage to person or property is all that should matter. I really don't care what level of sobriety or how fast someone is driving...it is the punishment for the damage that should count...all the other factors are reason to lesson the punishment and that is wrong in my book.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation: a guy is driving through a school zone at 120 mph and a kid runs out from behind a car and into the path of the vehicle. Now say the driver was traveling 20 mph and the kid does the same thing. Does the driver have a higher likelihood of avoiding the child at 20 mph than he does at 120 mph? Sure he could still hit the kid even driving slowly, but the odds are much better. Now we could say that logically it's the fault of the person who ran out in front of the car but how much responsibility can you assign to a child? I guess you could blame the child's parent for that split second of inattention to the child's whereabouts, but the child is still the victim. I'd rather there be a law protecting the child than a law punishing the parent. (Edit: I'm not implying that you're suggesting that, just that I'd rather have laws in place to try and prevent things rather than waiting for something to happen and then finding someone to punish.)

 

[ATF Consumer]

If I'm misunderstanding what you're saying please correct me. It sounds like you're advocating tougher penalties for things that are already occurring.

Absolutely, if there is a victim.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation: a guy is driving through a school zone at 120 mph and a kid runs out from behind a car and into the path of the vehicle. Now say the driver was traveling 20 mph and the kid does the same thing. Does the driver have a higher likelihood of avoiding the child at 20 mph than he does at 120 mph? Sure he could still hit the kid even driving slowly, but the odds are much better. Now we could say that logically it's the fault of the person who ran out in front of the car but how much responsibility can you assign to a child? I guess you could blame the child's parent for that split second of inattention to the child's whereabouts, but the child is still the victim. I'd rather there be a law protecting the child than a law punishing the parent. (Edit: I'm not implying that you're suggesting that, just that I'd rather have laws in place to try and prevent things rather than waiting for something to happen and then finding someone to punish.)

I'm all for recommendations on speeds, just not enforcement of such. If I am driving in a school zone, naturally I am more cautious and aware of darting children and such...If speed limits work in school zones, then why do I see LEO's continually pulling people over in them?

 

[jsharmon7]

Absolutely, if there is a victim.

And I'm all for stiffer penalties to prevent a victim. I'm not advocating something like The Minority Report, but if a given behavior has been repeatedly shown to increase the likelihood of a crime then I don't mind limiting that behavior. I differentiate between a truly victimless crime and a behavior that is very likely to cause a crime.

I'm all for recommendations on speeds, just not enforcement of such. If I am driving in a school zone, naturally I am more cautious and aware of darting children and such...If speed limits work in school zones, then why do I see LEO's continually pulling people over in them?

Again, it's about prevention for me. What I'm getting from your stance is that you want to wait for things to happen before doing something about it even though it's obvious that the behavior is dangerous. One shouldn't have to get shot in the head to realize that Russian roulette is dangerous and shouldn't be played, so to speak. I realize that we were originally discussing public intoxication, but I think the principle is the same. Merely being drunk isn't hurting anyone except the one doing the drinking, but it creates a more dangerous situation and I think it should be limited.

I also hope you don't take my arguments to mean that I don't think victimless crimes exist. I only think that most of the things people think of as "victimless" really aren't, or at least not for long.