Abolish Victimless Crimes:

[Book of Jeremiah]

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?

Let's suppose for the sake discussion the head of Homeland Security announces, and the Congress approves in the interest of combating terrorism, that citizens are now required by law to submit to searches, including body searches, vehicle searches, or residence searches, at any time of day by any police officer with no warrant requirement.

How would you feel about that? Don't think it can't happen because it certainly could. And if you think the Constitution would preclude it keep in mind the Supreme Court already has taken it upon itself to change the Probable Cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment to Reasonable Suspicion, which essentially means a hunch on the part of a police officer to search whomever they please with total impunity.

Which is why they don't want any pictures or video cameras permitted. I think people should obey their concience over the law. If you see some poor person getting beaten viciously by a gang of police - take the video. That poor man is your neighbor whether he is black,white,yellow or polka dot. Whether you know him or not. That is your neighbor. What would you want your neighbor to do for you? That video is the only evidence ( along with your testimony as a witness ) that will give that man his day in court before THE WORLD.

Obey your conscience and damn the consequences. Amen?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Your search . body search without warrant is unconstitutional. They can't do that and if they could I still wouldn't submit to it. I had a cop pull me over years ago and ask to search my car. I said not according to my constitutional rights you won't. He was asking for my permission! I gave him my lawyers card and said would you like to call him? He said, No, I know who that is and I don't need to call him. He handed me back my license and say bye - bye. I'm not a criminal and refuse to be treated as one. Neither should anyone else. It's just that simple.

 

[editec]

How can there be crime when there is no victim?

 

[FA_Q2]

How can there be crime when there is no victim?

Ask the lawmakers that have decided to make them crimes.

 

[eflatminor]

How can there be crime when there is no victim?

Because central planners are just SURE they know what's best for us all.

I demur.

 

[Duped]

How can there be crime when there is no victim?

They say that it is a crime against the integrity of the state; horseshit. If their is no victim, and you havn't put someone in harmsway, there is no crime except the law itself. Maybe when all the dinosaurs die off things will change. They have created a monster with all the lawyers, cops, turn keys, prisons etc. so it will be difficult. Now their are tons of cartel monies against it too; the laws have made them rich, and formidable, and the drug companies like eli lilly - so unfortunately it is a uphill tumultuous battle

 

[Katzndogz]

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

Here is the problem with your proposal. DUI checkpoints prevent fatal drunk driving incidents. Waiting until after the collision results in a dead body.

The principle you propose is one already applied to domestic abuse and home invasions resulting in death or serious injury.

Someone calls the police "There is someone outside my house acting strangely."
"Call use back when they break in."

A woman calls the police "My ex boyfriend is outside trying to get in. I'm afraid. He beat me up before."

"Until he actually breaks in, he hasn't broken any laws and there is nothing we can do. Call us back when he actually breaks in."

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Here is the problem with your proposal. DUI checkpoints prevent fatal drunk driving incidents. Waiting until after the collision results in a dead body.

The principle you propose is one already applied to domestic abuse and home invasions resulting in death or serious injury.

Someone calls the police "There is someone outside my house acting strangely."
"Call use back when they break in."

A woman calls the police "My ex boyfriend is outside trying to get in. I'm afraid. He beat me up before."

"Until he actually breaks in, he hasn't broken any laws and there is nothing we can do. Call us back when he actually breaks in."

the cops should need a reason to stop and interrogate anyone.

Driving legally down the road is no reason to have to be subjected to road blocks.

Using your logic everyone should be stopped, frisked, interrogated or otherwise detained for doing nothing because they might be thinking about breaking the law.

 

[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

Here is the problem with your proposal. DUI checkpoints prevent fatal drunk driving incidents. Waiting until after the collision results in a dead body.

As I previously argued, I believe we'd have less drunk driving collisions if the penalty for hurting another whilst under the influence was harsher, rather than applying the same standard to all drunk drivers, whether they've hurt another or not.

More importantly, I do not accept the premise that it is acceptable to infringe on our rights because it "might" increase public safety. By that logic, government could force all vehicles to have breathalyzers installed...or outlaw even one drink behind the wheel...or, as they tried in the past, to criminalize the possession of alcohol. No, even if you could prove checkpoints reduce collisions, I do not consider them an acceptable trade off.

As old Ben said so well, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The principle you propose is one already applied to domestic abuse and home invasions resulting in death or serious injury.

To be clear, domestic abuse and invading a home are NOT consensual acts and should be illegal.

Someone calls the police "There is someone outside my house acting strangely."
"Call use back when they break in."

This sounds more like an issue of police manpower than rule of law. If someone, acting strangely or not, is trespassing, they're doing so without consent and have broken the law. If one is not trespassing, surely you don't advocate that people should be arrested because someone else doesn't like that way they're acting...assuming they're not interfering with anyone?

A woman calls the police "My ex boyfriend is outside trying to get in. I'm afraid. He beat me up before."

"Until he actually breaks in, he hasn't broken any laws and there is nothing we can do. Call us back when he actually breaks in."

Well that's just not accurate. ANYONE "trying to get in" without permission is breaking the law. Again, that's not consensual activity, so it should be against the law...and it is. No 911 operator is going to say "Call us back with he actually breaks in" when someone is attempting to break into a house.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

People have to behave sanely and in their own best interests. We cannot make them do so with legislation, hard as the dems try.

It won't and can't happen.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

nah probably he was aiming at legalizing drugs, but the problem is when people use drugs, they arent themselves and can cause problems (PCP, LSD, ect)

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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

Here is the problem with your proposal. DUI checkpoints prevent fatal drunk driving incidents. Waiting until after the collision results in a dead body.

The principle you propose is one already applied to domestic abuse and home invasions resulting in death or serious injury.

Someone calls the police "There is someone outside my house acting strangely."
"Call use back when they break in."

A woman calls the police "My ex boyfriend is outside trying to get in. I'm afraid. He beat me up before."

"Until he actually breaks in, he hasn't broken any laws and there is nothing we can do. Call us back when he actually breaks in."

Mandatory castration at puberty would prevent rape. Forcing people to walk would prevent traffic accidents. Federal takeover of education prevents people from thinking critically.

Preventing crime is a ridiculous, authoritarian notion. Thinking people should oppose it at every given opportunity.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If i shoot at someone and miss, is that a victimless crime?

Should drunk driving be legalized unless the driver actually hits someone?

THINK

 

[FA_Q2]

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

Here is the problem with your proposal. DUI checkpoints prevent fatal drunk driving incidents. Waiting until after the collision results in a dead body.

The principle you propose is one already applied to domestic abuse and home invasions resulting in death or serious injury.

Someone calls the police "There is someone outside my house acting strangely."
"Call use back when they break in."

A woman calls the police "My ex boyfriend is outside trying to get in. I'm afraid. He beat me up before."

"Until he actually breaks in, he hasn't broken any laws and there is nothing we can do. Call us back when he actually breaks in."

Your analogy is false. In your examples, the police are coming at the request of a citizen and they should come – that is their purpose for existence. The idea that they should wait until the break in is asinine. The equivalent though would be allowing those police to incarcerated the person in question for his mere presence on the street. That would be wrong and that is what a checkpoint is. It is completely against the fourth amendment and its purpose – your security against unjust searches. The police have no reason to suspect that you are a drunk driver simply because you happen to utilize the road that you are paying for. That is an abuse of the police.

Let’s take your argument another way as well. You are claiming that because it provides a modicum of perceived safety (something that really has not been established though) that the violation of your rights is justified. Do you realize that the safest form of government does not involve democracy or freedom? A police state under a totalitarian is by far the safest form of government. It is, however, NOT preferable to freedom. Because you feel safer on the road is not necessarily justification to violate rights and that concept is a very dangerous one. That is EXACTLY the same justification that Obama uses with the NSA phone records against US citizens. It is a false justification.

 

[FA_Q2]

If i shoot at someone and miss, is that a victimless crime?

Should drunk driving be legalized unless the driver actually hits someone?

THINK

No one, anywhere in this thread, has made that claim. Pleas look again at eflats actual point.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If i shoot at someone and miss, is that a victimless crime?

Should drunk driving be legalized unless the driver actually hits someone?

THINK

Yes. However, your intent was still harm. The likelihood of you shooting once missing and then walking away are slim.

Yes.

 

[eflatminor]

If i shoot at someone and miss, is that a victimless crime?

Not if your intent was to harm. This was previously addressed. Read the thread.

Should drunk driving be legalized unless the driver actually hits someone?

Again, previously addressed.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah, who cares if your child's school bus driver is hooked on cocaine or crystal meth. As long as they didn't wreck today...great. Who cares about tomorrow...tomorrow, afterall, is always a day away.

 

[eflatminor]

Yeah, who cares if your child's school bus driver is hooked on cocaine or crystal meth.

Private companies are free to require sobriety tests before allowing their employees to operate their machinery. And of course, the employee is free to seek work elsewhere if they don't want to comply with the test. That's consensual.

As long as they didn't wreck today...great. Who cares about tomorrow...tomorrow, afterall, is always a day away.

Think of a cogent argument and get back to us.

 

[Duped]

You have a right to face your accuser - which should be your victim. Endangering someone should be a crime to various degrees. Let freedom ring - let people live their lives. You are the stewart of your body - not the government!