Abolish Victimless Crimes:

[The2ndAmendment]

1 in 97 Americans behind bars! 1 in 6 black men have gone to jail in their lifetime!

Abolishing all "victimless crime" laws. Anyone who does anything that doesn't result in the physical coercion, threat of coercion or fraud against another cannot, by definition under the Zero-Aggression Principle, be a "crime."

That will significantly reduce the number of people labeled and treated as "criminals," which in turn will considerably empty our jails and prisons by releasing those who never did any direct harm to any other individual, and it will substantially lower the caseload on the nation's courts.

While the prison industry will greatly shrink, saving taxpayers the cost of housing non-violent, non-coercive, non-threatening individuals consider what would happen if the whole law and legal sectors retained their current populations.

It would mean that trials would become genuinely "speedy" as required by the Sixth Amendment because of vastly reduced dockets.

It would mean that all law enforcement agencies could concentrate on hiring quality over quantity, and focus on ridding our society of people who do actual harm to others by returning their focus to actual police work rather than continually demanding easy shortcuts, special treatment and lazy procedures.

Giving cops more power over our lives doesn't stop crime; it simply turns the uniformed
gangs into criminals themselves.

While it won't solve everything, enforcing the Zero-Aggression Principle is the first step toward creating a civilized society.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXkydzqPC6M]Zero Aggression Principle - YouTube[/ame]

 

[FA_Q2]

Exactly. If there is no victim then there is no crime and you cannot be a victim of yourself.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

CS Lewis

Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system

Rynd

 

[eflatminor]

Abolish Victimless Crimes

I agree. I'd like to see two simple principals applied to any and all legal situations before an adult can be charged with a crime:

1) Did the person take something that didn't belong to them?
2) Did the person harm or cause trouble...or otherwise 'mess with'...another?

If the answer is 'no' to both questions, no criminal prosecution should be allowed.

Take drunk driving for example. I say if someone causes an accident...or even just crosses a double yellow, forcing oncoming traffic to have to swerve to avoid a collision...and that person is found to be under the influence, then not only should they be charged with a driving infraction, they should be prosecuted for drunk driving. I have no problem with that.

However, the idea of random checkpoints that seek to arrest someone that has done nothing to cause even the slightest inconvenience to another is wrong. I have a big problem with that.

Lots of other examples of consensual activity between adults being considered criminal activity. It is wrong and it should be stopped. But then, I still advocate for that old and outdated idea of freedom. Crazy, I know.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. - Thomas Jefferson

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So most drug crimes would still be crimes since they steal and rob to support their habit and the dealers kill people to protect their product and routes.

Or are you suggesting the Government pay for all addicts drugs?

 

[FJO]

I was hoping that the OP would list all the victimless crimes that should be abolished.

None was listed, so I was left wondering: Is this thread going to be an apology for being politically incorrect or something concrete and worthwhile to discuss.

OP, please enlighten.

 

[eflatminor]

So most drug crimes would still be crimes since they steal and rob to support their habit and the dealers kill people to protect their product and routes.

When you steal or rob, you've taken what doesn't belong to you. Crime.

When you kill another, you've harmed without consent. Crime.

What you put into your body by your own choice does not involve taking from or harming another. Not a crime.

Or are you suggesting the Government pay for all addicts drugs?

Good God no.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I was hoping that the OP would list all the victimless crimes that should be abolished.

None was listed, so I was left wondering: Is this thread going to be an apology for being politically incorrect or something concrete and worthwhile to discuss.

OP, please enlighten.

I said all, that means all. There is no partisanship on this issue. ALL

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So most drug crimes would still be crimes since they steal and rob to support their habit and the dealers kill people to protect their product and routes.

Or are you suggesting the Government pay for all addicts drugs?

???

Most people, who would never expect, buy their drugs with money they earn from their regular job...you probably work with a few and don't even know.

 

[FA_Q2]

So most drug crimes would still be crimes since they steal and rob to support their habit and the dealers kill people to protect their product and routes.

Or are you suggesting the Government pay for all addicts drugs?

No. Not only is that false but it is an insane leap in logic.

Stealing would be a crime, killing is a crime. Smoking drugs would not. If you do illegal activities to support your habit then yes, you would still be a criminal. The reality is that the majority of people that have done or do drugs do not do anything else illegal. I, myself have been down that road and nearly faced a decade in prison had I been caught – never did anything at all like you describe. That stance is one of complete ignorance of most drug abuse.

BTW, with drugs not being illegal, most crimes that surround them would vanish. You do know that during the short time that alcohol was illegal, it had ALL the same characteristics – murders protecting trafficking, theft and other black market ugliness surrounding it. How many people are murdered today for alcohol imports?

Yes, history disagrees with the insane idea that drugs are the problem and not the moronic laws that create underground markets.

There are also more laws than simple drug laws that have no victims. Everything from seatbelt and helmet laws to drug and prostitution laws should be abolished immediately. They are asinine morality laws that do nothing but cause harm rather than good.

 

[eflatminor]

I was hoping that the OP would list all the victimless crimes that should be abolished.

Rather than trying to list the thousands of laws that seek to punish consensual adult activity, why not simply apply logic and reason to any claim of potential lawbreaking? Stated differently, if you didn't hurt nor take from another, you should not be prosecuted.

None was listed, so I was left wondering: Is this thread going to be an apology for being politically incorrect

Goodness I hope not. Being politically incorrect neither harms nor takes from another. Have at it!

or something concrete and worthwhile to discuss.

Given the billions we've spent incarcerating people that have done nothing to hurt or take from another...and the assault on basic liberty that demonstrates...I'd say it's very worthwhile to discuss.

 

[FA_Q2]

So most drug crimes would still be crimes since they steal and rob to support their habit and the dealers kill people to protect their product and routes.

Or are you suggesting the Government pay for all addicts drugs?

???

Most people, who would never expect, buy their drugs with money they earn from their regular job...you probably work with a few and don't even know.

Most likely many. I was surprised as hell after my eyes were opened to how common such things are. In many of my first jobs, drug abuse was close to 100 percent of the employees. Everything from the rampant methinfetamine abuse at the auto shop I worked at and the pot that almost the entire crew at the window and glass shop that I worked in.

Funny enough, that started me down a similar road as I realized that I had been lied to most of my life. These were perfectly normal people leading perfectly normal lives that you would have been none the wiser that they used drugs had they not told you. I learned a lot and that I really do not want to use drugs BUT that just because someone does, their life is not destroyed.

 

[Mad Scientist]

So most drug crimes would still be crimes since they steal and rob to support their habit and the dealers kill people to protect their product and routes.

Or are you suggesting the Government pay for all addicts drugs?

Why not? It's on record the US ships drugs in to this country.

The US Marines guard Opium Poppy fields in Afghanistan.

The US Gov't ships the drugs in.

The local Police ignore the drug dealers.

But if yer kids shoot in in their veins they're going to Prison! And a Privately Owned one at that!


USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! Thank a Veteran for that!

 

[FJO]

I was hoping that the OP would list all the victimless crimes that should be abolished.

None was listed, so I was left wondering: Is this thread going to be an apology for being politically incorrect or something concrete and worthwhile to discuss.

OP, please enlighten.

I said all, that means all. There is no partisanship on this issue. ALL

OK, let's take from there. I assume by "all" you meant one that which every bleeding heart refers to as 'victimless', prostitution.

A costumer caught HIV/AIDS from an infected prostitute. He is no victim, tough luck, he asked for it, RIGHT?

Or how about drug dealing? Another example of the PC crowd of 'victimless crime'?

A teenager commits suicide because some scum sold/gave him drugs that the kid did not know how to cope with.

Shall I go on before you respond with more nonsense?

You and your ilk it's perfectly OK to ruin the life of Paula Deen, for nothing but a single word that is no more offensive than "redneck' as applied to hardworking white people, or 'slut' applied buy liberals to any and all non-Democrat women like Sarah Palin or Laura Ingraham, or "Uncle Tom" as applied to Justice Clarence Thomas, but real victims of real crimes should go free according to your twisted sense of 'fairness' and 'logic'.

If it's defined as crime there is a victim.

 

[eflatminor]

I was hoping that the OP would list all the victimless crimes that should be abolished.

None was listed, so I was left wondering: Is this thread going to be an apology for being politically incorrect or something concrete and worthwhile to discuss.

OP, please enlighten.

I said all, that means all. There is no partisanship on this issue. ALL

OK, let's take from there. I assume by "all" you meant one that which every bleeding heart refers to as 'victimless', prostitution.

A costumer caught HIV/AIDS from an infected prostitute. He is no victim, tough luck, he asked for it, RIGHT?

Wrong. It would depend on the particulars.

If the infected prostitute sold her services on the idea that she was clean but knew she wasn't, she harmed another and could be subject to prosecution. If no such claim was made by the prostitute, it would be reasonable for the customer to use a condom when having sex with a random partner. His refusal to do so was his choice, so unless there was massive deception on the part of the prostitute, I see no grounds for prosecution. Either way, a prosecutor would have to look into the particulars of such a claim, just as they do with other potential crimes. This does not warrant outlawing any and all sex-oriented services.

Or how about drug dealing? Another example of the PC crowd of 'victimless crime'?

A teenager commits suicide because some scum sold/gave him drugs that the kid did not know how to cope with.

We made it clear that we're talking about consensual activity between ADULTS. Kids are a different story. When a child is involved, there cannot be informed consent. So there, you can propose all the laws you like.

So, if that teenager is an adult and takes/buys drugs and can't cope, that's not the fault of the supplier of the drugs. It was the adult's choice to take them.

Shall I go on before you respond with more nonsense?

Only if you have a cogent argument to put forward.

You and your ilk it's perfectly OK to ruin the life of Paula Deen, for nothing but a single word that is no more offensive than "redneck' as applied to hardworking white people,

I think it's appalling what's been done to Deen. Why? Because she neither hurt another nor took what didn't belong to her.

or 'slut' applied buy liberals to any and all non-Democrat women like Sarah Palin or Laura Ingraham,

That too is outrageous.

or "Uncle Tom" as applied to Justice Clarence Thomas,

My second favorite SC justice.

but real victims of real crimes should go free according to your twisted sense of 'fairness' and 'logic'.

I assume you mean something different here.

To be clear, I want real criminals prosecuted and those that never hurt nor took from another to never have been prosecuted in the first place.

 

[Avatar4321]

I dont know any victimless crimes off the top of my head. But regardless of that, how does the number of people in prisons suggest we need to eliminate crimes to get them out. They wouldnt be there if they didn't commit crimes. No one forced them to. Holding them accountable to the laws of our society isn't a bad thing merely because it makes them a criminal. That logic makes no sense.

How about instead of decriminalizing actions, we as a society step up and start obeying the law?

 

[whitehall]

DUI drivers are not involved in physical coercion. Should we let them drive on? Drug peddlers who ruin lives by hooking kids on controlled substances are really nice guys who just want to make a buck. Legalize it all and let God sort them out.

 

[FJO]

I said all, that means all. There is no partisanship on this issue. ALL

OK, let's take from there. I assume by "all" you meant one that which every bleeding heart refers to as 'victimless', prostitution.

A costumer caught HIV/AIDS from an infected prostitute. He is no victim, tough luck, he asked for it, RIGHT?

Wrong. It would depend on the particulars.

If the infected prostitute sold her services on the idea that she was clean but knew she wasn't, she harmed another and could be subject to prosecution. If no such claim was made by the prostitute, it would be reasonable for the customer to use a condom when having sex with a random partner. His refusal to do so was his choice, so unless there was massive deception on the part of the prostitute, I see no grounds for prosecution. Either way, a prosecutor would have to look into the particulars of such a claim, just as they do with other potential crimes. This does not warrant outlawing any and all sex-oriented services.



We made it clear that we're talking about consensual activity between ADULTS. Kids are a different story. When a child is involved, there cannot be informed consent. So there, you can propose all the laws you like.

So, if that teenager is an adult and takes/buys drugs and can't cope, that's not the fault of the supplier of the drugs. It was the adult's choice to take them.



Only if you have a cogent argument to put forward.



I think it's appalling what's been done to Deen. Why? Because she neither hurt another nor took what didn't belong to her.



That too is outrageous.

or "Uncle Tom" as applied to Justice Clarence Thomas,

My second favorite SC justice.

but real victims of real crimes should go free according to your twisted sense of 'fairness' and 'logic'.

I assume you mean something different here.

To be clear, I want real criminals prosecuted and those that never hurt nor took from another to never have been prosecuted in the first place.

Congratulations, you won the "Apologist of the Year" award!

So, when your kid is arrested for drug possession you will give the dealer a free pass?
So, when your wife cheats on you, while it's not a crime will you give her a free pass?
So, when some punk bursts in your house and try to steel what you have, but finds nothing worthwhile to take, you give him/her a free pass?

Just asking, because, according to your "LOGIC" if the innocent victim of racial persecution who invaded your house takes nothing from you, his act is NOT a crime.

 

[eflatminor]

OK, let's take from there. I assume by "all" you meant one that which every bleeding heart refers to as 'victimless', prostitution.

A costumer caught HIV/AIDS from an infected prostitute. He is no victim, tough luck, he asked for it, RIGHT?

Wrong. It would depend on the particulars.

If the infected prostitute sold her services on the idea that she was clean but knew she wasn't, she harmed another and could be subject to prosecution. If no such claim was made by the prostitute, it would be reasonable for the customer to use a condom when having sex with a random partner. His refusal to do so was his choice, so unless there was massive deception on the part of the prostitute, I see no grounds for prosecution. Either way, a prosecutor would have to look into the particulars of such a claim, just as they do with other potential crimes. This does not warrant outlawing any and all sex-oriented services.



We made it clear that we're talking about consensual activity between ADULTS. Kids are a different story. When a child is involved, there cannot be informed consent. So there, you can propose all the laws you like.

So, if that teenager is an adult and takes/buys drugs and can't cope, that's not the fault of the supplier of the drugs. It was the adult's choice to take them.



Only if you have a cogent argument to put forward.



I think it's appalling what's been done to Deen. Why? Because she neither hurt another nor took what didn't belong to her.



That too is outrageous.



My second favorite SC justice.

but real victims of real crimes should go free according to your twisted sense of 'fairness' and 'logic'.

I assume you mean something different here.

To be clear, I want real criminals prosecuted and those that never hurt nor took from another to never have been prosecuted in the first place.

Congratulations, you won the "Apologist of the Year" award!

Childish remarks do not help your case.

So, when your kid is arrested for drug possession you will give the dealer a free pass?

ON MORE TIME, we're talking about ADULT criminality. What we've advocating DOES NOT apply to children. Selling drugs to a child can, and should, be illegal.

So, when your wife cheats on you, while it's not a crime will you give her a free pass?

Trouble staying focused? We're talking about activity that is deemed criminal. And as you've said, cheating is not a crime. Stick to the point at hand.

So, when some punk bursts in your house and try to steel what you have, but finds nothing worthwhile to take, you give him/her a free pass?

Home invasion is absolutely a NON-CONSENSUAL act and should therefore be illegal. It's only consensual activity between adults where we question criminal prosecution. So, no, no free pass to home invaders.

Just asking, because, according to your "LOGIC" if the innocent victim of racial persecution who invaded your house takes nothing from you, his act is NOT a crime

Wrong, as I've made crystal clear.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So most drug crimes would still be crimes since they steal and rob to support their habit and the dealers kill people to protect their product and routes.

Or are you suggesting the Government pay for all addicts drugs?

I know many people who like to smoke weed that have never stolen to do so.

A dealer killing someone is murder not a drug offense.

 

[eflatminor]

DUI drivers are not involved in physical coercion. Should we let them drive on?

If a drunk driver causes an accident, I agree we should not let them drive on. They've harmed another, so prosecution is on the table. They've done so while doing something we all know is dangerous, so by all means, throw the book at them. Harsh penalties are in order for drunk drivers that hurt others, absolutely!

However, that's a very different thing from random checkpoints that end up prosecuting a driver that never caused an accident nor committed a moving violation.

Drug peddlers who ruin lives by hooking kids on controlled substances are really nice guys who just want to make a buck. Legalize it all and let God sort them out.

Good God people, how many times do we have to say it?! WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADULTS! ONLY ADULTS!!!