Poll: Should victimless crimes be legal?

[PeachD]

Perhaps a consideration to make is the chance that certain "victimless" crimes could in fact have a victim.

The seatbelt examples given above are a good one. Without a seatbelt, you could lose control of the vehicle, or be more seriously injured requiring more and more expensive medical care. Therefore seatbelt laws are a good idea IMO.

Drugs are a bit more complicated. When someone is experimenting then perhaps it's a victimless crime, unless they go out and drive under the influence and hurt themselves or others. In later stages of addiction however, we get into the realm of possibly of stealing to supply the habit, or injuring or killing others in the course of dealing or securing drugs for the habit. While there may be many who proclaim it won't happen to them, the reality of chronic drug use is that in many cases, eventually, someone is going to get hurt.

So for these two items, seatbelts and drugs, I'd say that ultimately they're not victimless, so therefore should not be legal.

[My name is not bruce]

No he did not. He took his own life with a shotgun. He did have heroin in him at the time though.

I personally don't believe in victimless crimes. People victimize their loved ones all the time through a variety of bad behaviors. Some will never be illegal.

[Ladarius W]

I DO have a problem with all of this, and you hit the nail on the head. (I think we're in agreement but coming from different angles). The government makes laws to protect itself (seatbelt as it costs them $$) but not to protect the citizens (prices, wages, etc).

This is the reverse of what I believe it should be -- the government of any country should look out first for its citizens. Of course it could be argued that if the government doesn't take care of itself, it eventually won't be able to take care of the citizens.

-edit- not that I agree with that last argument; IMO it's a balance that must be maintained between the two.

[tpdawkins]

if a person gets in an accident, it usually has nothing to do with whether that person wore a seatbelt or not. not wearing a seatbelt doesnt impair your driving or put you at a higher risk of hurting others

incidentally if you do get into an accident and damage someone's property or injure them, youre not considered a criminal (although it costs you). accidentally victimizing someone is not a crime

i dont know if you realize this, but the other driver's ability to hit the brakes rather than lose control of the car has absolutely nothing to do with wearing seatbelts

[Squee]

I'm not so sure. It is possible that heroin prevented Kurt from killing himself sooner as heroin is known to deaden pain. Kurt had long term stomach problems associated with stress/anxiety and often suffered from severe stomach pain. I can't say why he chose a shotgun rather than overdose.
Killing himself is not a crime as I see it but there certainly were "victims" of his actions.

[TOMATO VS POTATO]

Hehe... actually some claim that he didn`t kill himself at all, but Courtney Love had him killed. Allthough I`m guessing we`re (read:I`m) trailing off topic.

[pianist09]

sinjin, thanks for the factual correction. Perhaps that helps make the case that heroin was having an effect on Mr. Cobain and the people around him.

Eddie, what you say makes sense. Moonshining for example is illegal; but if the manufacturer jumps through the correct hoops and meets the standarRAB required, then he can begin manufacturing his product. Seatbelt use can be measured looking only at the driver, or by all the other factors surrounding the vehicle, including medical expenses paid on behalf of the driver if/when they are injured. I think it's valid to state that without seatbelts, a driver in an accident is often, but not always, more seriously injured.

[Bart S]

but if the government victimizes its citizens in order to protect itself, wouldnt that violate the rule of protecting the citizens? (ever heard of asimov's laws? )

anyway... now with all this out on the table, lets review the original question:

should victimless activities be illegal?

[drinkcoasters]

victimless: not directly putting any third party or property at risk of physical damage or any form of harm.

not wearing seatbelts, carrying drugs around and hiring undocumented immigrants are examples of victimless activities, as are listening to music, reading a book or brushing your teeth.

driving recklessly, assault and arson are examples of activities that can cause harm to others, as are divorcing your spouse, firing your employees and spreading hiv.

[SensorForum]

Did you ever settle on a definition of "victimless"?