No victim, no crime?

[jsharmon7]

Laws do not protect. They punish. If laws protected kids, then no kids would get run over.

You need to re-analyze the way you think of the law. Criminal law should be a reactive punishment for hurting someone. When you have laws that try to "play the odds" and punish people who have no bad intentions and didn't hurt anyone, then you have laws that proactively punish, creating the nightmarish nanny state that we have today.

I'm quite comfortable with the way I think of the law.

Do you think it should be okay for your neighbor to stand just off your property and shoot his gun across your yard or at the birds sitting on your roof? By your logic he should be allowed to do it all day long so long as he doesn't miss and hit your or your house. Sure there will be penalties if he kills someone, but a lot of good it's going to do if you're dead. Theoretically the penalty you're imposing should deter him, but there's no guarantee. Proactive laws also depend on people fearing the consequences, but they also serve as guidelines for people who are too stupid to know better. It gives a police officer the authority to order someone to stop their reckless behavior. I'd rather an officer have the ability to tell someone to stop shooting at your house before they kill you rather than letting them do it and then punishing them. If you let people do whatever they want then nobody has any right to tell them to stop endangering the lives of others. I think those in authority should use common sense when enforcing the laws, but I don't want to take away their ability to prevent crime. The system in place is far from perfect but it's better than not trying to prevent tragedies.

 

[rambone]

Do you think it should be okay for your neighbor to stand just off your property and shoot his gun across your yard or at the birds sitting on your roof? By your logic he should be allowed to do it all day long so long as he doesn't miss and hit your or your house.

I'd rather an officer have the ability to tell someone to stop shooting at your house before they kill you rather than letting them do it and then punishing them.

No. I'm quite certain that if he is shooting on my property, over my property, or at my property, he is violating my claim to that property. Therefore I am the victim, the same as I would be the victim if someone vandalized my property. Bogus example.

And I think every time you draw your weapon you should be held 100% accountable. My house is not "protected" by such a law. Drive by shootings happen every day. Laws do not protect. They punish.

Sure there will be penalties if he kills someone, but a lot of good it's going to do if you're dead.

You really think the law protects you from dying at another person's hand? It doesn't. The law punishes. It does not protect you.

Theoretically the penalty you're imposing should deter him, but there's no guarantee. Proactive laws also depend on people fearing the consequences, but they also serve as guidelines for people who are too stupid to know better. It gives a police officer the authority to order someone to stop their reckless behavior.

Arguing about the Nanny State is exactly like arguing gun control. The law-breakers don't obey the law. Nobody is safer with horrible restrictions on gun rights. Innocent people are now fearful of unknowingly breaking the law without doing anything wrong. You are not safer with any such law.

If you let people do whatever they want then nobody has any right to tell them to stop endangering the lives of others. I think those in authority should use common sense when enforcing the laws, but I don't want to take away their ability to prevent crime. The system in place is far from perfect but it's better than not trying to prevent tragedies.

Actually, you do have the right to tell him to stop endangering the lives of others. "Please stop endangering the lives of others."

Your laws do not prevent crime.



I'd rather see less innocent people being jailed for victimless crimes and address the issue of horribly overcrowded prisons, than expand the mess of tyranny disguised as an excuse to protect the children.

I'm quite comfortable with the way I think of the law.

 

[CombatVet]

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.

Good point. I guess I'm thinking more ubber defensively. Which I suppose is what some of the problem with these laws are. I've also driven at stupid high speeds in safe conditions and unsafe conditions and haven't caused an accident. I guess it comes down to personal responsibility. There's so many damn idiots out there though, it's hard not to want to limit their abilities.

 

[mrjarrell]

Good point. I guess I'm thinking more ubber defensively. Which I suppose is what some of the problem with these laws are. I've also driven at stupid high speeds in safe conditions and unsafe conditions and haven't caused an accident. I guess it comes down to personal responsibility. There's so many damn idiots out there though, it's hard not to want to limit their abilities.

By limiting the abilities of the "stupid" you also, by necessity, have to limit yourself and others. That's never a good thing if you're seeking to live a life of freedom. I absolutely cringe every time I see a motorcycle rider without a helmet. But I lobby against the imposition of helmet laws. Same for seat belts. I always wear mine, but I speak out against the law. We all have to be free to make our own choices, for good or ill. Until we've caused objective harm to another we haven't committed a "crime". As for defence, all we can do is defend ourselves. Not force others to leave us be.

 

[CombatVet]

By limiting the abilities of the "stupid" you also, by necessity, have to limit yourself and others. That's never a good thing if you're seeking to live a life of freedom. I absolutely cringe every time I see a motorcycle rider without a helmet. But I lobby against the imposition of helmet laws. Same for seat belts. I always wear mine, but I speak out against the law. We all have to be free to make our own choices, for good or ill. Until we've caused objective harm to another we haven't committed a "crime". As for defence, all we can do is defend ourselves. Not force others to leave us be.

I used to think like this and over the years I've gotten away from it for some reason. I'm glad I bumped into these posts to remind myself. I'm very much of the thinking leave me alone to do what I need to do and you go about your business.

 

[jsharmon7]

No. I'm quite certain that if he is shooting on my property, over my property, or at my property, he is violating my claim to that property. Therefore I am the victim, the same as I would be the victim if someone vandalized my property. Bogus example.

Bogus how? He's not hurting you and he's not hurting your property until he hits something. You're still more than capable of utilizing your property because he's not actually doing anything to you or your property other than creating a dangerous situation. Since we're not concerned with preventing dangerous situations, there is no victim.

And I think every time you draw your weapon you should be held 100% accountable. My house is not "protected" by such a law. Drive by shootings happen every day. Laws do not protect. They punish.

You really think the law protects you from dying at another person's hand? It doesn't. The law punishes. It does not protect you.

Yes, it does protect. Let's go back to the drunk driving example. Some people know it's illegal and do it anyway because they don't fear the consequences. Some people know it's illegal and don't do it because they don't want to risk getting pulled over. Since (in my opinion) it's logical to assume that more drunk drivers on the road increase the risk of an innocent person being in an accident caused by a drunk driver, then less drunk drivers on the road decreases that risk. That means less victims, which means that needless injuries and deaths have been prevented because people decided not to drive drunk. Now I fully understand the idea that people will fear the punishment they would recieve for injuring someone, but let's be realistic. Nobody thinks that their drunk driving will result in someone's death, but they are fully aware of the likelihood of getting caught by the police. That acknowledgement prevents people from doing something that they might otherwise do. The bottom line is that both methods require people to fear the consequences of their actions, but many fewer people acknowledge that they could kill someone whereas almost everyone acknowledges that they could get pulled over by the police. In essence, people don't fear getting in an accident because most of them think they are just fine to drive, but they do understand that the chance of being stopped is decent. Sure we could make "dangerous driving" a crime if they are swerving all over the road but they STILL haven't created a victim...yet.

Arguing about the Nanny State is exactly like arguing gun control. The law-breakers don't obey the law. Nobody is safer with horrible restrictions on gun rights. Innocent people are now fearful of unknowingly breaking the law without doing anything wrong. You are not safer with any such law.

I'm against gun control because a gun in the hands of a responsible and sober person isn't inherently dangerous. I think that some of the so-called victimless crimes being discussed are, however, inherently dangerous and I'm glad that the government has a legally enforceable way of saying "hey stop being stupid and endangering that guy's life or else you'll be in trouble." There is no way to prevent ALL crimes, but laws prevent some of them.

Actually, you do have the right to tell him to stop endangering the lives of others. "Please stop endangering the lives of others."

Your laws do not prevent crime.

You're absolutely right, I could walk up and say that. Without the force of law behind it though why should they listen?

I think it's sort of contradictory to say that you think people should be punished for their crimes but laws and punishment don't prevent crime. The idea of punishment is to deter. I shouldn't put my hand on the stove because it will burn me. No matter how you slice it, making anything illegal only works because of the potential consequences. The alternative would be to abolish all laws and let chaos reign.

I'd rather see less innocent people being jailed for victimless crimes and address the issue of horribly overcrowded prisons, than expand the mess of tyranny disguised as an excuse to protect the children.

I think this is an excellent point because overcrowded prisons are a huge problem. The alternate point-of-view from mine has been that we'll punish people for creating victims and they will be harsh enough that people will act appropriately and we'll be able to get rid of some laws. Harsh in what way? Physical punishment or long jail terms? If a guy is driving drunk and runs into you and breaks your leg, how shall he be punished? What if he kills your family member? How then? The jails will still be overcrowded either way. At least with the current system people can pay for their misdeeds with community service or probation. If we resort to making penalties so harsh that people are careful then I don't see how we could continue to use some of our current punishments.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Shooting in the direction of another's property is endangering others, but that is not where the crime has fallen, it is violating the property space of the individual that should count. The gunman has every right to shoot his gun, but on his own property and to keep the bullets within said property. Shooting outside one's own property violates other's property rights, unless your at a range or the like.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I think this is an excellent point because overcrowded prisons are a huge problem. The alternate point-of-view from mine has been that we'll punish people for creating victims and they will be harsh enough that people will act appropriately and we'll be able to get rid of some laws. Harsh in what way? Physical punishment or long jail terms? If a guy is driving drunk and runs into you and breaks your leg, how shall he be punished? What if he kills your family member? How then? The jails will still be overcrowded either way. At least with the current system people can pay for their misdeeds with community service or probation. If we resort to making penalties so harsh that people are careful then I don't see how we could continue to use some of our current punishments.

I'm not claiming to have all of the answers, but...
Obviously punishments would have to change...such as rape or molestation...castration sounds like a good cure for that.
Imagine how much space would be freed up from all of the drug related incarcerations.
As far as things like breaking someone's leg from hitting them while drunk...They are indebted to the injured person for that damage. A system could be setup to not only have the debt repaid, but also punish for said damage and their reckless driving...drunk should not be a factor. I'm not just for jailing for longer terms, but we can't keep slapping down light punishment for repeated offenses. As I said before...we should not allow any sort of leniency for good behavior, as that does not benefit the victim in any measure. All that does is send a message to the criminal that they can get away with their crimes by acting good.
I believe this would ultimately reduce the numbers we have in the system today. The numbers of jailed for victim-less crime is staggering.

 

[rambone]

Bogus how? He's not hurting you and he's not hurting your property until he hits something. You're still more than capable of utilizing your property because he's not actually doing anything to you or your property other than creating a dangerous situation. Since we're not concerned with preventing dangerous situations, there is no victim.

You have to understand property rights to understand my example. Trespassing is a violation of my claim to property too. The victim is me, the landlord. I pay for this land and I am in charge of it. Use of my land without compensation is akin to stealing.

Yes, it does protect.

If the law protects us from bad guys, what are we doing with these guns? We are just paranoid, the government will protect us.

I'm against gun control because a gun in the hands of a responsible and sober person isn't inherently dangerous. I think that some of the so-called victimless crimes being discussed are, however, inherently dangerous and I'm glad that the government has a legally enforceable way of saying "hey stop being stupid and endangering that guy's life or else you'll be in trouble." There is no way to prevent ALL crimes, but laws prevent some of them.

Sober people have accidents too, and commit murders too. Sure they are dangerous. All he has to do is pull the trigger, isn't that dangerous enough for you to ban it? Sure, he didn't have any bad intentions and didn't hurt a fly, but since we are banning all dangerous scenarios how can we sleep at night knowing that knowing that our children are just a trigger-pull away from death? Sure, these gun-nuts know they will go to prison if they hurt someone, but is that really enough? Nobody thinks they will accidentally hurt someone with their gun. The only solution is to punish the good people with the bad people, despite if they had any bad intentions or actually did anything wrong. This is the only way to "protect" us from bad guys.

Exactly the same argument as the rest of these awful laws. Punish the good with the bad, make everyone into a criminal, give the police extraordinary powers and rely on "common-sense" as the only thing stopping them from eliminating our rights.

I think it's sort of contradictory to say that you think people should be punished for their crimes but laws and punishment don't prevent crime. The idea of punishment is to deter. I shouldn't put my hand on the stove because it will burn me. No matter how you slice it, making anything illegal only works because of the potential consequences. The alternative would be to abolish all laws and let chaos reign.

No. No. No. The alternative to banning everything is not to have chaos reign.

Let me say that again. Killing the Nanny State does not mean people will be able to shoot their gun at my house without punishment.

There is an in-between area of justice... not having everything illegal... not having total anarchy... it is called limited government. It means you cannot send the police out to arrest people for practically everything. It means good, honest people won't have to be afraid of the police because the laws will be obvious: infringe on someone else's rights and be punished. That means life, liberty, property.

I think this is an excellent point because overcrowded prisons are a huge problem. The alternate point-of-view from mine has been that we'll punish people for creating victims and they will be harsh enough that people will act appropriately and we'll be able to get rid of some laws. Harsh in what way? Physical punishment or long jail terms? If a guy is driving drunk and runs into you and breaks your leg, how shall he be punished? What if he kills your family member? How then? The jails will still be overcrowded either way. At least with the current system people can pay for their misdeeds with community service or probation. If we resort to making penalties so harsh that people are careful then I don't see how we could continue to use some of our current punishments.

I'd be fine with eliminating all the ridiculous victimless crimes, and give the remaining, actual crimes, a longer sentence. These include murder, rape, molestation, theft, robbery, etc. NOT vice crimes, prostitution, gambling, drug possession, illegal gun possession, not wearing a seatbelt/helmet, violating gun-free zones, alcohol sales laws, tobacco sales laws, etc.

It shouldn't be the government's business if you "victimize yourself."

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Some people just have difficulty reconciling their desire to control the behavior of others & the idea of individual freedom. How someone can support Drug, Truancy, Public Intoxication, or Seatbelt laws & call themselves a patriot is well beyond my understanding.

Individual freedom means that the guy over there can do whatever he wants to do so long as it doesn't harm someone's person or property w/out their consent. Any laws created outside this idea are fascist in nature with the ultimate goal of controlling people.

 

[88GT]

I'm quite comfortable with the way I think of the law.

Do you think it should be okay for your neighbor to stand just off your property and shoot his gun across your yard or at the birds sitting on your roof? By your logic he should be allowed to do it all day long so long as he doesn't miss and hit your or your house. Sure there will be penalties if he kills someone, but a lot of good it's going to do if you're dead. Theoretically the penalty you're imposing should deter him, but there's no guarantee. Proactive laws also depend on people fearing the consequences, but they also serve as guidelines for people who are too stupid to know better. It gives a police officer the authority to order someone to stop their reckless behavior. I'd rather an officer have the ability to tell someone to stop shooting at your house before they kill you rather than letting them do it and then punishing them. If you let people do whatever they want then nobody has any right to tell them to stop endangering the lives of others. I think those in authority should use common sense when enforcing the laws, but I don't want to take away their ability to prevent crime. The system in place is far from perfect but it's better than not trying to prevent tragedies.

Pshaw. You're not taking away something they use anyway. Remember: they don't have a legal obligation to prevent it. (Couldn't decide if it really deserved purple.)

By limiting the abilities of the "stupid" you also, by necessity, have to limit yourself and others. That's never a good thing if you're seeking to live a life of freedom. I absolutely cringe every time I see a motorcycle rider without a helmet. But I lobby against the imposition of helmet laws. Same for seat belts. I always wear mine, but I speak out against the law. We all have to be free to make our own choices, for good or ill. Until we've caused objective harm to another we haven't committed a "crime". As for defence, all we can do is defend ourselves. Not force others to leave us be.

I call it legislating to the lowest common denominator. And you're right: it's an utter failure. It's an attempt to do that which cannot realistically be achieved: legislating common sense/morality/good judgment. You can't fix stupid; and you can't make it illegal either.

 

[jsgolfman]

Freedom is scary to some.

 

[Rookie]

So who gets to decide who the victim is? No victim no crime, right? Using that reasoning child pornography should be legal. You have 12 to 17 year olds sexting so it should be okay for adults to be involved. Now take it a step further and the same adult is taking pictures of two year olds. Should it be legal? Who knows, one of those kids could grow up and be proud of their pictures. What about the other thousands that grow up and realize they were victimized? The one person shouldn't be held to the same standard because the kid grew up liking it?
Child molestation. Say a nineteen year old has consensual sex with a twelve year old. They spend the rest of their lives together happily ever after. Nineteen year old and fourteen year old but the fourteen year old ends up committing suicide because she realizes she was used. Should we punish one but not the other?
My eight year old doesn't like to go to school, is that okay? What if he grows up to be a bum? Shouldn't I be at fault? What if he grows up and becomes a billionare? Granted the odds are slim, but shouldn't we wait and see? He grows up to be a bum and I get punished, but he would have to suffer far more than I would.
Beastiality. How do you know if the animal is a victim?
How do you address Stockholm syndrome?

I agree that there are far too many assinine laws, but going the no victim route would be more devastating.

 

[dross]

There is much assumption on this thread of facts not in evidence.

Fear of harsh punishment has never been shown to be a major deterrent of crime. Fear of getting caught and facing a light punishment is a greater deterrent than relative lack of fear of getting caught and facing a harsh punishment.

I don't want to live in a society where the government scrutiny is so effective as to create a deterrent.

I don't think we need to solve the crime problem. I think we've solved it, for all practical purposes. Attempts to solve it further are based on the false assumption that it CAN be improved, and ignore the strong likliehood that it may make our lives worse.

 

[bigus_D]

del

 

[rambone]

omfg

So who gets to decide who the victim is? No victim no crime, right? Using that reasoning child pornography should be legal. You have 12 to 17 year olds sexting so it should be okay for adults to be involved. Now take it a step further and the same adult is taking pictures of two year olds. Should it be legal? Who knows, one of those kids could grow up and be proud of their pictures. What about the other thousands that grow up and realize they were victimized? The one person shouldn't be held to the same standard because the kid grew up liking it?
Child molestation. Say a nineteen year old has consensual sex with a twelve year old. They spend the rest of their lives together happily ever after. Nineteen year old and fourteen year old but the fourteen year old ends up committing suicide because she realizes she was used. Should we punish one but not the other?
My eight year old doesn't like to go to school, is that okay? What if he grows up to be a bum? Shouldn't I be at fault? What if he grows up and becomes a billionare? Granted the odds are slim, but shouldn't we wait and see? He grows up to be a bum and I get punished, but he would have to suffer far more than I would.
Beastiality. How do you know if the animal is a victim?
How do you address Stockholm syndrome?

I agree that there are far too many assinine laws, but going the no victim route would be more devastating.

You're right. Without the Nanny State... America's children would be molested without recourse. Just like it would allow people to shoot their rifles at my house. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Children have always been held to a different standard than adults regarding consent, and I haven't heard anyone advocating otherwise. To clarify, I think it should be more than obvious to you that the victim of child exploitation is the child. I think this description put it well.

Victimless Crimes

Consideration of victimless crime involving more than one participant needs to take account of whether all the participants are capable of giving genuine consent. This may not be the case if one or more of the participants are:

• Animals
• Children (normally measured as being under the legal age of consent)
• Severely mentally ill
• Not fully informed about the issues involved
• Suffering from mood swings
• Acting under duress
• Addicted
• Intoxicated
• Unconscious

As for Bestiality; assign victimhood to the animal if you think this is a real problem in your neck of the woods.

As for Stockholm Syndrome; the sympathies of the victim do not nullify the act of kidnapping. For clarity, kidnapping would remain a criminal act in the fantasy world of limited government.

 

[ATF Consumer]

So who gets to decide who the victim is? No victim no crime, right? Using that reasoning child pornography should be legal. You have 12 to 17 year olds sexting so it should be okay for adults to be involved. Now take it a step further and the same adult is taking pictures of two year olds. Should it be legal? Who knows, one of those kids could grow up and be proud of their pictures. What about the other thousands that grow up and realize they were victimized? The one person shouldn't be held to the same standard because the kid grew up liking it?
Child molestation. Say a nineteen year old has consensual sex with a twelve year old. They spend the rest of their lives together happily ever after. Nineteen year old and fourteen year old but the fourteen year old ends up committing suicide because she realizes she was used. Should we punish one but not the other?
My eight year old doesn't like to go to school, is that okay? What if he grows up to be a bum? Shouldn't I be at fault? What if he grows up and becomes a billionare? Granted the odds are slim, but shouldn't we wait and see? He grows up to be a bum and I get punished, but he would have to suffer far more than I would.
Beastiality. How do you know if the animal is a victim?
How do you address Stockholm syndrome?

I agree that there are far too many assinine laws, but going the no victim route would be more devastating.

I don't see where the age limit for consensual sex would change...so the argument for a 19 and 12 year old would still be molestation.
Again I'm not claiming to have all of the answers, but these preposterous scenarios that are being pulled out of the thin air to make this sound idea something quack, is quack itself.
As for the child pornography goes...same thing as consensual sex...those pictures are not legal because the child cannot give consent at the age when they cannot make life changing decisions. Property rights!
As for education, you are the parent and it is YOUR responsibility to make sure they are educated enough to be productive in society...if you allow them to skip school, that's your own fault. No punishment other than knowing your child became nothing in their adult life...live with it.
Animals cannot give consent...can they?
Stockholm syndrome...that sounds like a mental illness to me and if people are that easily manipulated, all the laws in the world cannot help them...
What other crazy, far fetched ideas do you have to argue against FREEDOM and LIBERTY?

 

[Fargo]

Shooting in the direction of another's property is endangering others, but that is not where the crime has fallen, it is violating the property space of the individual that should count. The gunman has every right to shoot his gun, but on his own property and to keep the bullets within said property. Shooting outside one's own property violates other's property rights, unless your at a range or the like.

So, next time you are at Eagle Creek and are downrange switching targets its cool if I go hot and light you up just so long as I don't hit you, right? I mean, no one's property rights are being violated and I didn't actually shoot you.

I don't think you have thought through what your new absolute principle does to ATTMEPTED murder/rape/theft/robbery etc.

Joe

 

[ATF Consumer]

So, next time you are at Eagle Creek and are downrange switching targets its cool if I go hot and light you up just so long as I don't hit you, right? I mean, no one's property rights are being violated and I didn't actually shoot you.

I don't think you have thought through what your new absolute principle does to ATTMEPTED murder/rape/theft/robbery etc.

Joe

It is amazing what is coming out of the woodwork here...

 

[Eddie]

I think that when we look at an alleged crime, analyzing whether or not there is a victim is a valid consideration in deciding whether or not a law is just. Yes, we can find exceptions to every rule and different people may reasonably disgree as to nuance, but as a rule of thumb I think I can agree with the statement "Crimes should have victims." If a person is arrested and brought before a court I would not think it unreasonable to ask "who is the victim of this crime?" as a part of the initial process of deciding whether or not the case should go further.

I think that a related line of inquiry is whether we are criminalizing actions or things.

A law that says you may not have a machine gun criminalizes a thing. That is irrational. We should be able to own the things that we choose to own.

A law that says you may not shoot your neighbor criminalizes the action of shooting your neighbor as opposed to the action of owning property.

Yes, you can come up with extreme examples where these rules don't work as well, but I think that they are good, general principles to use in analyzing laws.