We have a couple of ideas here that are separate.
1. Do laws deter crime?
2. Should there be a law (thus creating a crime) if there is no possibility of a victim? That no other person is or could be deprived of their life, liberty, or property.
There's probably a law making parking against the lawful flow of traffic on a two-way residential street a crime, but I don't know who the victim is.
Our speeding example again: if one is driving at a speed above the limit, say 60 in the 55 zone, yet in a controlled manner, who is the victim or potential victim?
1. Do laws deter crime?
Laws do, in fact, deter crime.
Well, no. The probability of being caught and severity of punishment deters crime. There are plenty of scantly-enforced laws that don't prevent the crimes they create; example: speeding. There are also plenty of acts that are wrong by their nature, and laws concerning them define their punishment, but don't make them any more "wrong" than they already are; example: murder.What we're talking about is whether enacting a law can prevent victimization (crime).
2. Should there be a law (thus creating a crime) if there is no possibility of a victim? That no other person is or could be deprived of their life, liberty, or property.
There's probably a law making parking against the lawful flow of traffic on a two-way residential street a crime, but I don't know who the victim is.
Our speeding example again: if one is driving at a speed above the limit, say 60 in the 55 zone, yet in a controlled manner, who is the victim or potential victim?