No victim, no crime?

[semperfi211]

what about undecent exposure?

 

[88GT]

I didn't follow the link, but I think somethings like speed limits are needed. Speeding doesn't have a victim, but causing an accident does.

Causing an accident can be done in the absence of "excessive" speed. Would the at-fault party be any less guilty of the other charges because he wasn't speeding? Driving at a particular velocity doesn't cause accidents. Irresponsible drivers do. Part of that irresponsibility may manifest itself as driving too fast for the conditions and the driver's ability to maintain control, but speed itself is not a contributor to accidents. Or we'd have more pile-ups on our roadways than we could shake a stick at.

what about undecent exposure?

I don't know about that, but I could make an argument that indecent exposure can leave a person harmed for life, depending on the individual that did the exposing.

 

[ATF Consumer]

And I'm all for stiffer penalties to prevent a victim. I'm not advocating something like The Minority Report, but if a given behavior has been repeatedly shown to increase the likelihood of a crime then I don't mind limiting that behavior. I differentiate between a truly victimless crime and a behavior that is very likely to cause a crime.




Again, it's about prevention for me. What I'm getting from your stance is that you want to wait for things to happen before doing something about it even though it's obvious that the behavior is dangerous.

People will learn accountability real quick in that type of society.
If the punishment for such crimes were stiff enough, that in itself would reduce the behavior. We are all too eager to put safety-nets in place to protect people, but go light on the punishment. It is like we are focusing more effort on prevention through negative reinforcement than to focus on the damage to victim and property where the real problem lies.
I understand that this would cause a huge negative cash flow for the county/city/state, but that can be addressed with other solutions.

One shouldn't have to get shot in the head to realize that Russian roulette is dangerous and shouldn't be played, so to speak. I realize that we were originally discussing public intoxication, but I think the principle is the same. Merely being drunk isn't hurting anyone except the one doing the drinking, but it creates a more dangerous situation and I think it should be limited.

I also hope you don't take my arguments to mean that I don't think victimless crimes exist. I only think that most of the things people think of as "victimless" really aren't, or at least not for long.

Didn't prohibition actually cause more crime and problems than what was happening prior to that time? That is an example of the exact opposite of your reasons to protect people with "prevention"

 

[MTC]

I don't know about that, but I could make an argument that indecent exposure can leave a person harmed for life, depending on the individual that did the exposing.

Aaaack! My eyes!

 

[Lex Concord]

Do you have knowledge of this happening? I'd love to see an officer's report on this arrest, it would be thrown out quickly I'd guess. I work in a small town and we handle things a little more casually, I don't think I'd ever see this. It seems like you're suggesting changing the laws to protect against overzealous officers rather than changing the officers?

It was a news story I remember from several years ago...Alabama comes to mind. Not saying it's widespread, but it has (does) happen.

My point is that an officer's discretion is indeed wide, while most are probably reasonable, as with any cross-section of society, there are some real dipsticks too. Yes, the laws should be changed.

Now, if the officer violates your rights, the officer needs to be changed. No, I don't mean refusing to let you slide because you were "nice", I mean like the idiots who curb-stomp somebody because they roll their eyes or smart off a bit. If the FOPs/brass had a clue they would realize these turds should be hung out to dry rather than have the wagons circled around them. It would be a huge boon to the image of law enforcement everywhere this were to take place.

 

[Lex Concord]

what about undecent exposure?

Not necessarily victimless...while some might just get a good laugh, it can be very traumatic to others.

Also, the definition of indecent exposure (as with most other acts) varies by state and, often, locality.

 

[ATF Consumer]

For the most part, I agree, but there are exceptions.

I don't see where this type of entrapment is helping...in fact, I have watched a few of these episodes and some of the perps even admit to watching the program. If watching with their own eyes doesn't stop them, the only thing that could possibly do so would be knowing that they would never see day light EVER again. But we encourage this activity by the light sentences... what we have currently is repeat offenders over and over again.

 

[jsharmon7]

Didn't prohibition actually cause more crime and problems than what was happening prior to that time? That is an example of the exact opposite of your reasons to protect people with "prevention"

I don't think this is quite the same argument. Alcohol consumption was at an all-time low just prior to Prohibition, its enactment caused a problem where there was none. So if you're asking me if I want to come up with some new laws that address non-issues, then no I don't want to do that. I think there is a massive difference between enforcing laws against behaviors that create dangerous situations and enacting arbitrary laws against a general idea so as to create new criminals. Drinking doesn't necessarily cause a dangerous situation, drinking too much and driving a car or interacting with the general public does. Prohibition didn't make that distinction, it just said that alcohol for any reason other than medicinal purposes was illegal. This thread is about victimless "crimes," and drinking alcohol in moderation is completely legal. Drinking a beer doesn't create a dangerous situation, but drinking 12 and getting in your car does. To be perfectly honest, I really wouldn't care if they made all drugs legal so long as you're in your own home and only hurting yourself, there is no victim but you. The problem is that drugs like heroine and meth are so addictive that people resort to crime to pay for their habit, or they lose control of their lives and rely on government handouts because they can't keep it together. This is why I don't support the legalization of hard drugs, not because I'm worried about what an individual is doing to himself/herself. Again, my argument is that there is a difference between a truly victimless crime and a behavior that creates a dangerous situation. The Prohibition argument fits neither.

 

[Bendrx]

I say a crime has to have a victim. I also say that I know this is NOT how our laws work. As for the laws to reduce chances, I'm against. I don't want to live in a world were "almost, but not quite breaking the law is illegal." Not always, but frequently such acts could also be called "exercising your Rights". As the example with the child running out into the road. It COULD be that because the car was speeding the child didn't get in front of it, or maybe just got knocked back by the slipstream. Also, bad is part of life. Bad things will happen and giving up freedom to maybe be a little safer, maybe less isn't something I'm interested in.

 

[jsharmon7]

I say a crime has to have a victim. I also say that I know this is NOT how our laws work. As for the laws to reduce chances, I'm against. I don't want to live in a world were "almost, but not quite breaking the law is illegal." Not always, but frequently such acts could also be called "exercising your Rights". As the example with the child running out into the road. It COULD be that because the car was speeding the child didn't get in front of it, or maybe just got knocked back by the slipstream. Also, bad is part of life. Bad things will happen and giving up freedom to maybe be a little safer, maybe less isn't something I'm interested in.

I've had more than my fair share of posts to give my opinion on this topic, but I did want to ask:

Where do your rights end and mine begin? Is there any end to a person's rights? If a person is free to go around acting recklessly and endangering others, what can the potential victims do about it? If a person (not you, I don't know you) thinks it's their right to drive drunk or shoot over my house, what am I to do about it if there isn't a law against it? I don't think the fact that a person will be harshly punished is going to make me or my family feel better if something tragic happens. Do you see it as infringing upon someone's rights if they are told they can't do something such as I described?

 

[ATF Consumer]

Drinking doesn't necessarily cause a dangerous situation, drinking too much and driving a car or interacting with the general public does. Prohibition didn't make that distinction, it just said that alcohol for any reason other than medicinal purposes was illegal. This thread is about victimless "crimes," and drinking alcohol in moderation is completely legal. Drinking a beer doesn't create a dangerous situation, but drinking 12 and getting in your car does.

That is a very subjective in nature. As you may know...12 beers can and will affect different people in different ways and what level of blood-alcohol content makes one person incapable of following the rules of the road may not hinder another persons abilities. Your same argument can be said about tiredness or even anger/hostility. I suppose if the government could figure out a way to measure that, then that too would be illegal at certain levels/limits.
Setting limits on anything, that once you go over, all of a sudden becomes a crime is not solving any of the problems they attempt to address. Black and white punishment for actual crime is what will show positive results. With the current laws, we are saying that people are less responsible for their actions if they get behind the wheel with alcohol in their system. I beg to differ. I don't buy into the hype some use that they wouldn't have done something if it wasn't for the alcohol they consumed. Nothing but an excuse for not taking accountability for their actions. This kind of goes along with the argument about carrying a firearm while drinking. I could be plastered, falling down drunk...but that would not affect my judgement about pulling out my firearm to shoot someone because they said something that made me mad. It would affect my accuracy indeed, but certainly not my judgement on when and when not to use force.

To be perfectly honest, I really wouldn't care if they made all drugs legal so long as you're in your own home and only hurting yourself, there is no victim but you. The problem is that drugs like heroine and meth are so addictive that people resort to crime to pay for their habit, or they lose control of their lives and rely on government handouts because they can't keep it together. This is why I don't support the legalization of hard drugs, not because I'm worried about what an individual is doing to himself/herself. Again, my argument is that there is a difference between a truly victimless crime and a behavior that creates a dangerous situation. The Prohibition argument fits neither.

That is why we need to have stiffer punishment for those crimes, then they wouldn't be in the community to continue down their crime spree. It shouldn't be the governments responsibility to care for individuals because they can't keep it together. Goes back to the same two items of responsibility and accountability. Prohibition was to protect us... Why was Prohibition introduced?
Seems to be in line with what I was saying.

 

[88GT]

I've had more than my fair share of posts to give my opinion on this topic, but I did want to ask:

Where do your rights end and mine begin? Is there any end to a person's rights? If a person is free to go around acting recklessly and endangering others, what can the potential victims do about it? If a person (not you, I don't know you) thinks it's their right to drive drunk or shoot over my house, what am I to do about it if there isn't a law against it? I don't think the fact that a person will be harshly punished is going to make me or my family feel better if something tragic happens. Do you see it as infringing upon someone's rights if they are told they can't do something such as I described?

How does being a potential victim equate to infringing on your rights?

You can drive by 10 drunk drivers and arrive at your destination unscathed. Were you victimized? Were your rights infringed?

You can drive next to one sober moron and end up in the hospital for months? Did his BAC have anything to do with your becoming a victim?

 

[Benny]

I don't see where this type of entrapment is helping...in fact, I have watched a few of these episodes and some of the perps even admit to watching the program. If watching with their own eyes doesn't stop them, the only thing that could possibly do so would be knowing that they would never see day light EVER again. But we encourage this activity by the light sentences... what we have currently is repeat offenders over and over again.

True story...It pisses me off to no end how easily these pieces of get off after being proven guilty.

If you molest a child or "attempt" to molest a child the only 2 sentences available should be life in prison or castration...I prefer the latter of the two, so we don't have to pay for them to live.

 

[abnk]

A couple of questions: How does society punish suicide bombers? Should it be legal for someone to own an explosive vest so long as no intent of using it against fellow men is displayed?

 

[ATF Consumer]

A couple of questions: How does society punish suicide bombers?

They can't ever do it again, now can they?
You can't protect the people from everything. Maybe we should all wear bomb proof clothing all the time. Is this really a problem that needs addressed? Seems like a far fetched straw of an argument to me.

Should it be legal for someone to own an explosive vest so long as no intent of using it against fellow men is displayed?

Sure, it's a free country, isn't it?

 

[abnk]

Is this really a problem that needs addressed? Seems like a far fetched straw of an argument to me.

Sure, it's a free country, isn't it?

The thread is arguing a philosophical absolute. I think my previous questions fits right in; especially because it has been happening for decades in the world and honestly, there are no barriers to keep it from happening here. That is hasn't happened yet in that form is only luck.

And, no, it isn't a free country for the individual.

 

[ATF Consumer]

The thread is arguing a philosophical absolute. I think my previous questions fits right in; especially because it has been happening for decades in the world and honestly, there are no barriers to keep it from happening here. That is hasn't happened yet in that form is only luck.

And, no, it isn't a free country for the individual.

And you believe actions taken by others have prevented it from occurring? Your bolded text tells me otherwise.

 

[Bendrx]

Where do your rights end and mine begin? Is there any end to a person's rights? If a person is free to go around acting recklessly and endangering others, what can the potential victims do about it? If a person (not you, I don't know you) thinks it's their right to drive drunk or shoot over my house, what am I to do about it if there isn't a law against it? I don't think the fact that a person will be harshly punished is going to make me or my family feel better if something tragic happens. Do you see it as infringing upon someone's rights if they are told they can't do something such as I described?

I can't think of a way to say where or what I think the line is. Things like DUI, I think the issue is that the driving is poor. Up the unsafe driving penalties and reduce the number of laws. Germany has some harsh punishments for traffic, but I'm not sure about law count. Other things like shooting on my property should be allowed. I live in the city, but I can build a berm next to my house just as easy as I could out of the city. All bullets would have to stay within the property lines. I see the issues mostly in the city level things. But at the same time I do think cities have the rights to make somewhat more restrictive laws due to the arrangements. I just feel some are silly and intrusive - this annoys me.

 

[rambone]

I'd rather there be a law protecting the child than a law punishing the parent.

Laws do not protect. They punish. If laws protected kids, then no kids would get run over.

You need to re-analyze the way you think of the law. Criminal law should be a reactive punishment for hurting someone. When you have laws that try to "play the odds" and punish people who have no bad intentions and didn't hurt anyone, then you have laws that proactively punish, creating the nightmarish nanny state that we have today.

Should it be legal for someone to own an explosive vest so long as no intent of using it against fellow men is displayed?

Should it be legal to own a gun if no bad intent is displayed? Your argument is the heart of gun control.

If a man has made his decision to end his life, all the liberty-killing laws in the world won't stop him. And he will still make his vest. Laws do not protect you from suicide bombers. If they did, there would be no such thing as a suicide bombing.

And, no, it isn't a free country for the individual.

No thanks to these disgusting nanny state laws.

 

[rambone]

Last weekend I was building a parade float in a friend's garage inside their apartment complex; shared by several other units. We were painting, sawing, and the like. Drinking some beers too. There were seven of us ranging in age from 20s-50s.

Then police started pulling in the lot. There was several moments of silence as we tried to figure out what was going on. What did we do?? Noise violation? Public intoxication? Were we supposed to get a permit?

As it turns out, they were there due to a smoke alarm going off in another apartment. But what struck me is that every one of us agreed that we were actually afraid that they were there for us. Here we are, a bunch of normal people minding our own business, and we are afraid of the police.

We live in a society where you can break the law and not even know it. There are so many laws about everything that to call this country free is an absolute joke, as abnk proudly admitted.

Whomever supports Nanny State laws is no friend of liberty.