Should "victimless" crimes be illegal?

[FreakyLocz14]

There are things that are criminal even though the "crime" has no victim. Those who say "no" usually contend that these crimes either have no victim or the victim is the criminal themself. Those who support these laws usually do so in the name of public morality or quality of life for the public at whole.

A crime is usually consider to be "victimless" if the only party involved is the criminal themself or all parties involved are consenting to the activity that the law consider criminal and no non-consenting party is harmed.

"Vitcimless" crimes include drug usage, suicide/attempted suicide, prostitution, statutory rape and child sex laws (in situation where the minor consents to the activity), anti-polygamy laws, and gambling in jurisdictions where it is not lawful to do so, among other things.

 

[Spinor]

^ Said it all. Laws are not only to protect individuals, but society of the country as a whole.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

^ Said it all. Laws are not only to protect individuals, but society of the country as a whole.

What did they say? The message got deleted XD

 

[Beechlgz]

I think there are victimless crimes, but I wouldn't regard drug usage, suicide/attempted suicide, prostitution, statutory rape and child sex laws (in situation where the minor consents to the activity) or gambling among them.

They all have their severe consequences in the degradation of society as a whole, not just among a few individuals. There are victims in all of these crimes, it's not common for there not to be any.

 

[Guillermo]

Every crime has a victim. Whether it's someone else, or yourself. You can't commit a crime (or someone else can't) with no one suffering from it.

Of course, this is just the way I see things.

 

[Citrinin]

Well, one must consider the nature of the term "victim" for the purpose of the criminal law. It's not a matter of pedanticism, but at what point someone affected by an act moves to that status. For example, I doubt it would stir up too much controversy if you consider a victim to be someone whose physical integrity was compromised or whose property was expropriated, as with the crimes of assault and theft, respectively. But what if someone is emotionally damaged? Or morally offended? Or just annoyed?

Perhaps more importantly, though, you have to consider that criminal law usually extends beyond the scope of "who is a victim?" Inchoate offences, for example, are offences where people can be punished for helping, assisting, or encouraging someone else to commit a crime. Such offences do not have victims in and of themselves, but there exists a motivation to reduce these activities because they contribute to others making people victims.

What about perjury? Under some definitions of "victim", if used to keep someone out of jail, it is a victimless crime. And yet few would support legalising perjury, because it functions as what is known as a crime against justice. It is the interest of society as a whole to keep the judicial system as accurate as possible.

Similarly, bribery. If I bribe a politician to vote a certain way and they accept it, even if they were going to vote for that proposal anyway, they will still be liable. Such a bribe has no direct effect on anybody, except on me and the politician. But, the reason for the existing liability is that we actively try to remove any culture of corruption that we can. What matters is not the transfer of money in my hypothetical so much as the symbolism that people give it.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

There have been some interesting thoughts brought up.

An attorney who is against the prosecution of "victimless" crimes once told me that the legal system was established to protect people's individual rights. The courts are meant to hear cases where someone's rights were violated and seek justice for the victim. If you steal from somone, you violated their property rights, if you murder someone, you violated their right to live, if you kidnap somone, you violated their right of liberty, etc. The courts are supposed to place criminal and/or civil sanctions on people or entities that violated the rights of another by taking away some of the rights of the criminal (i.e. making them pay damages or putting them in jail or prison).

From the opposing perspective, you could look at it from a collective instead of an individual point-of-view. Prosecutors are attorneys who prosecute crimes in the name of "the People" instead of in the name of the individual victim(s). The goal of the prosecutor is twofold: to protect the safety of the general public as well as to express society's outrage that one of its citizens was victimized. Although the latter sounds more individual, it is society who is seeking justice on behalf of its victimized citizens and not justice just for the individual victim(s).

Regarding perjury and bribery, they do have victims. Perjury victimizes the parties involved in a case. A criminal defendant who may be innoncent could be convicted based on perjured testimony, or someone who is dangerous could be acquitted. Likewise, parties in a civil case could lose money wrongfully by having to pay a judgement based on perjured testimony.

Regarding bribery, I've heard people contend that bribery should be a civil issue.

 

[Citrinin]

Perjury victimizes the parties involved in a case.

It depends on your definition of "victim". In the case of perjury to send someone to jail, it's pretty clear-cut that there's a victim. To acquit someone, it does depend on your definition of victim. On one hand, you could consider families victims due to emotional trauma that seeing someone released does. Or, if you happen to favour a wide net of criminal liability (meaning those not directly responsible but contributing can still be punished), the assisting in an acquittal of, say, a serial killer would certainly not make perjury victimless.

But there are cases when it certainly could be victimless, such as protecting someone who committed a one-off offence in the heat of passion. But a prosecutor in a case of perjury doesn't have to prove that the perjury victimised anyone, because the basis of the crime is that it violates the abstract concept of justice.

A personal opinion could easily hold a definition of "victim" that makes perjury not a victimless crime. (And I'm certainly not claiming that perjury is always victimless.) But until we know what exactly we consider a victim, such considerations are important.

Regarding bribery, I've heard people contend that bribery should be a civil issue.

Fair enough. If one wants to take a strict victim-based approach, then it would be consistent that bribery should be damages based.

 

[Archer]

There are things that are criminal even though the "crime" has no victim. Those who say "no" usually contend that these crimes either have no victim or the victim is the criminal themself. Those who support these laws usually do so in the name of public morality or quality of life for the public at whole.

A crime is usually consider to be "victimless" if the only party involved is the criminal themself or all parties involved are consenting to the activity that the law consider criminal and no non-consenting party is harmed.

"Vitcimless" crimes include drug usage (exposes others to the drugs and promotes the sale of such drugs. It's to keep people safe.), suicide/attempted suicide,(exposing others to horrific scenes, stops unfair claim of life insurance, etc. It's still killing a person. Keeps people safe.) prostitution, (not discussing in depth on this forum, but it's morally questionable, and reduces the number of people forced into it.) statutory rape and child sex laws (in situation where the minor consents to the activity), (Minor is not qualified to make that sort of a decision, thus minor is the victim. In a situation like that, they may feel pressured into consent) anti-polygamy laws, (Maintains normal family structure and avoids legal grey areas. Usually occurs in a patriarchal situation, so females are victimised) and gambling (reduces the ease of gambling, which is, strangely enough, similar to the drugs issue. People often gain an addiction to gambling, hurting the lives of themselves and those around them. Reduces the preying on insecure people to make money) in jurisdictions where it is not lawful to do so, among other things.

Arguments in bold. Most of these do have a victim. Regardless, they are to protect society and to uphold the moral values that are derived from the original/dominant religion/culture of the area. ie. Christian-derived countries (UK, US, Australia, Canada, to name just a few) see polygamy as against the strict marriage guidelines from the religion. Many religions also see suicide as a form of murder - "no human has the right to take a life" point-of-view. That becomes an issue with self-defense (during war and law enforcement, especially), but they are often more justified.

tl;dr = they have victims, it's to protect people, many laws are religion/ethics-derived.

 

[SonicThrust]

Technically breaking and entering and trespassing are victimless crimes according to the definition you provided, especially if nothing it stolen.

I have varying views on victimless crimes depending on what they are. Some I don't see a point in having as illegal whereas others I support completely.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Technically breaking and entering and trespassing are victimless crimes according to the definition you provided, especially if nothing it stolen.

I have varying views on victimless crimes depending on what they are. Some I don't see a point in having as illegal whereas others I support completely.

How is breaking and entering victimless? Property is destroyed in that scenario.

 

[Alyssachu]

Suicides and suicide attempt, in my opinion, should NOT be a damn crime. If it's one's choice to take their own life, so be it. If they are depressed enough in life, so be it- disregarding everyone who loves them, if anyone. On another note... Statutory Rape, I believe, shouldn't really be a crime either. It isn't RAPE. There's no reason RAPE should even be in that definition. Rape itself is an awful, horrible, disgusting thing. Molesting children is disgusting... etc. But when a minor consents to it, it isn't RAPE. There's no reason a person needs to spend 10 years in prison, or all their life in prison for having agreed sex with a minor. One year in prison? Yes, that sounds more reasonable. 5 months? Yeah. But some states make it 10 years, life, etc. I'm not saying someone over 16 should be having sex with an 11 year old, though. That in itself just... doesn't seem right. But getting life in prison for that when there are WAY worse things (like ACTUAL rape, abuse, and what-not), is just ridiculous.

But that's MY opinion. O_o

 

[Melody]

I feel that the child sex laws are the only laws that are baseless and stupid under the reasoning that they're "victimless" if the minor truly consents, and is not pressured into consenting.

Prostitution isn't necessarily wrong, but it is not very wise...but it's that person's life, so why rule out something they can do? Honestly if this were merely strictly regulated instead of banned, the risks of this would be far far less, and people wouldn't be forced into it. (Desperate people couldn't be forced into it due to the extreme regulation, as they'd need to get checked out for the usual health issues and such, and be licensed by the government to practice.)


All the other laws that the OP listed are still legal despite being "victimless" in the legal definition. (Personally I think Suicide isn't victimless, the victims are your loved ones and the person(s) who find you dead)

 

[Alice]

There are things that are criminal even though the "crime" has no victim. Those who say "no" usually contend that these crimes either have no victim or the victim is the criminal themself. Those who support these laws usually do so in the name of public morality or quality of life for the public at whole.

A crime is usually consider to be "victimless" if the only party involved is the criminal themself or all parties involved are consenting to the activity that the law consider criminal and no non-consenting party is harmed.

"Vitcimless" crimes include drug usage, suicide/attempted suicide, prostitution, statutory rape and child sex laws (in situation where the minor consents to the activity), anti-polygamy laws, and gambling in jurisdictions where it is not lawful to do so, among other things.

IMO, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. If there happens to be no victim, it's still a crime because there easily could have been a victim. (Which is why alcohol really should be illegal, but obviously that didn't really work out lol.) A lot of things that really can't directly have a victim (like prostitution) often go along with other crimes, like drugs etc. When it comes to child sex laws, the child is too young to give consent, and could easily be manipulated.

 

[Citrinin]

Honestly if this were merely strictly regulated instead of banned, the risks of this would be far far less, and people wouldn't be forced into it. (Desperate people couldn't be forced into it due to the extreme regulation, as they'd need to get checked out for the usual health issues and such, and be licensed by the government to practice.)

Society has a tendency to keep its black markets tight-knit and ever close to violence. People being forced into prostitution is often a consequence of this link to violence and gangs.

Depending on what you mean by "extreme regulation", a black market for prostitution may still exist (much like a black market for untaxed, unregulated cigarettes exists in some places where cigarettes are legal but heavily controlled). Regulation drives suppliers out and prices up, and if it's done to an "extreme" (again, depending on what you mean by this), people may seek cheaper methods, even if contrary to the law.

IMO, there is no such thing as a victimless crime.

Do you mean that the list of activities that the OP provided are not victimless, or that there literally can be no crime that is victimless? If it is the latter, then that would mean that any activity which the government is permitted to make illegal would have a victim. This would in turn suggest that the existence of victims is a poor basis for making something criminal.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

When I speak of child sex laws don't think of a 3 year old child, think of a 17 year old child entering into a consensul sexual relationship with another minor of 17 years of age. In my jurisdiction, both minors are guily of commiting misdemeanor stautory rape against eachother. Sure these cases are rarely prosecuted but everyday teenage sexual relationships are illegal in the State of California.

 

[twocows]

I don't think victimless crimes should exist, though I understand why the law specifies arbitrary limits for certain things, so that's just wishful thinking. However, I do think the purpose of the judicial system should be to determine if there is a victim. If the crime has no victim, I do not believe a person should be prosecuted. We have good, hardworking people having their lives and reputations ruined because the law can't, for instance, see the difference in consensual relations between a 15 and 16 year old and non-consensual relations between a 12 and 42 year old.