Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Victimless crime???

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by DrunkPotHead, Jun 29, 2005.

?

Are you vegetarian?

  1. Yes, I am (to what degree?) or I would/am considering it

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No, Im not, & I never will be, now get that rabbit food away from my steak!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. OTF option (Durf, poing, ze fallen Madonna wiz ze big boobies)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. DrunkPotHead

    DrunkPotHead IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Victimless crime???

    Is victimless crime really a crime?

    I don't think so.

    Here's some statistics about it.

    I think it's bull**** and victimless crime should be repealed and substituted with public education.
     
  2. giantpinkbunnyhead

    giantpinkbunnyhead IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    765
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    I agree... it's really simple in my eyes. If no one is wronged, how can it be called a crime? If no one is hurt, or negatively impacted, or inconvenienced... then what's the big deal?? (By no one, I also include animals, nature, etc... not just people)
     
  3. Kawaii

    Kawaii IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2003
    Messages:
    911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    If a crime is truly victimless, it should not be considered a crime.
     
  4. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,252
    Likes Received:
    358
    Trophy Points:
    498
    While the Wiki made several good arguments, the issue you asked about is "Victimless" rather than consensual. And yes, "Victimless" crimes are still crimes, since the law is not about righting a wrong but shaping societal behaviour.

    Some of the behaviours being shaped, many of which are also mentioned in your links, are not important to people who harbor a degree of libertarian attitude such as myself. So as far as I'm concerned, I may not support allowing all drugs, I really don't care about pot or hemp much. If we don't have socialist programs like welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, and so forth impacting our fellow citizens, they should be stricken from the books.

    However, trying to apply that standard to things like traffic signals is nothing short of stupid. Just because you don't get hurt when you break them doesn't mean it shouldn't be a law; just because you cheat on your taxes or a stock sale doesn't mean you aren't somehow defauding someone else whose face you'll never see.
     
  5. DrunkPotHead

    DrunkPotHead IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466

    Shouldn't you vote for option 3 then? And why do you believe that law should shape society instead of righting wrongs? In who's image should society be shaped?
     
  6. Garbad_the_Weak

    Garbad_the_Weak IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    If a crime truly had no victim, why would anyone care enough to prosecute? We prosecute because there is harm to society or to the individual (who has worth to society).

    But really, haven't you tried to convince us pot really is a good thing already? We know where you stand, no need for yet another poll.

    Garbad
     
  7. Suicidal Zebra

    Suicidal Zebra IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    Who decides what is a 'wrong' DPH?
     
  8. Garbad_the_Weak

    Garbad_the_Weak IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    The Democracy of the Nine, of course.

    Garbad
     
  9. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,252
    Likes Received:
    358
    Trophy Points:
    498
    Correct, SZ, and furthermore DPH, option #3 doesn't really fit your absolutist question very well.

    Law is inherently intended to modify behaviour; societies don't make laws unless someone is or is planning to do something that the society finds unacceptable. If the society finds something unimportant, the law will eventually be discarded or disregarded by the society, hence the cute "doggie tail-light" e-mail stories.

    It is the same sort of fallacy as believing the police are there to "Protect & Serve". They do neither directly; they are intended to support the established societal standards through intimidation when they're not reacting to emergencies or investigating past crimes.
     
  10. Garbad_the_Weak

    Garbad_the_Weak IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    I know, those bastards. When I was a kid I called 911 to get my cat out of a tree. The dispatcher told me they would come but she lied :(

    Because of that I never donate to those police fundraisers.

    Garbad
     
  11. Anakha1

    Anakha1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ummm... no. They serve through public service (doing more than just upholding the law) and they protect others (sometimes actively, sometimes proactively such as taking a criminal off the street before he can harm others). And they are there to act as an arm of the government to enforce agreed upon rules that govern our society and allow it to function. They do not "intimidate" people in their spare time. Deterrent and intimidation are two different things. But mostly they're there because the government needs its agents available to do what is necessary.
     
  12. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,252
    Likes Received:
    358
    Trophy Points:
    498
    See? I bet your cat died of starvation too...
     
  13. Garbad_the_Weak

    Garbad_the_Weak IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Nah, my brother and I threw rocks at him until he fell (my brother was supposed to run and catch him). Brilliant plan, I know, but the cat was took the fall without injury and was a great pet for another decade.

    Garbad
     
  14. DrunkPotHead

    DrunkPotHead IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    I think it does. You can be against prostitution laws but for seat belt laws, etc.

    I'm following you.
    I like it how you categorize society as a single being. I'm pretty sure we can only find a handful of laws that society agrees on as a whole. So where do all the other laws come from?

    And why is this the case? Why must the individual subscribe to the same mindset as the society? Why does society find things unacceptable if there's no victim?

    A wrong would be the result of someone's right's being violated.
     
  15. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,252
    Likes Received:
    358
    Trophy Points:
    498
    But they still don't mean that the concept of a 'victimless crime' is valid or invalid. You should have asked, "Can victimless crime exist" if you wanted that sort of answer.

    Well, in the U.S. and a couple of other countries, that's why we have states. It allows for adjustment to suit the preferences and differences of the majority of people in a particular contextual scale. Not that bad laws don't get passed, and that higher gov't doesn't unfairly meddle in lower gov't affairs. I'm not trying to view 'macro' society as being equivalent to 'micro' society here, particularly since I'm no kind of sociologist.

    Oh, please.
    - Yes, they *can* serve the public directly, but often with an effectiveness not much greater than that of construction workers or rented security. Sometimes far less.
    - The number of times they actively protect others is infinitesimal, since taking people off the streets is passive rather than active. You can't claim an active state of crime prevention when the perp hadn't committed {that particular} one yet.
    - And intimidation is exactly what they do, though you're misunderstanding the point. The presence of police is essential to ensuring the societal concept of law enforcement; I'm not suggesting that cops are lowbrow thugs wandering the streets beating people up for fun... well, except when I was in Philadelphia.

    You're considering this concept as 'needs its agents available to do what is necessary', but what good would something like State Troopers (Mounties?) be if they're in barracks stuffing their faces with doughnuts? They have to be out, visibly patrolling or on the news, to be of any use.
     
  16. Stevinator

    Stevinator IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    THe state would prosecute. Some people are just cranky. They want everyone to live the way they live, and any deviance from their narrow view of acceptable behavior is "wrong". We've got a few of those around here actually.

    I'm not sure pot=good I just think the feeling is pot is not as bad as it's reputation makes it out to be and that we waste a lot of money maintaining it as illicit.

    Anyway, as far as harm to society, are you saying that suicide should be illegal if I still have the ability to create value for society? because i can use that same logic to argue that it should be illegal to take a job as an underwater basket weaver if i have the skills and ability to be an engineer(harming society through opportunity cost). Citizens are not slaves to society. Freedom is a greater ideal than your version of this "betterment of society" routine. Who defines betterment? wouldn 't a freer society be "better" than one where society chooses who we are and what we do?
     
  17. DrunkPotHead

    DrunkPotHead IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Another victimless crime.

    I don't think she should be charged with anything. Plus, i think it will come back and bite her in the *** when she's older and trying to get a decent job.
     
  18. Steel_Avatar

    Steel_Avatar IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Seriously, DPH, stop. We get it already.
     
  19. DrunkPotHead

    DrunkPotHead IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Get what? It's just that when i browse around online, i find some interesting and stupid articles but I don't think i should make a new thread for each so i resurrect an old thread. In fact, if the Hiroshima/Nagaski bombing thread wasn't locked, I'd have something to add as well.

    Everyone always tells new posters "use the search button instead of making a new thread". Now I get scolded to using the search button. Stupid catch 22.
     
  20. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    If it's victimless, it can't be a crime.

    The purpose of a government it to protect people's rights. The purpose is NOT to be the morality police. If you look up examples of "victimless crimes", what you really see are examples of legislature pushing their view of morality.

    Wanna smoke pot (or anything) in your own home? Who cares.
    Wanna go hire a prostitute? No problem here.
    Wanna drive around without your seatbelt on like a dumbass? Fine with me.

    And when you:

    Get lung cancer? Who cares.
    Get an STD? No problem here.
    Get trashed in a car accident? Fine with me.

    And if any of those results are terminal, I fully support your right to kill yourself.
     

Share This Page