6 ms·

And yet, punishing people who haven't hurt anyone seems far worse the crime. Victim-less isn't a label, it's a statement of fact that no one was hurt and thus c

And yet, punishing people who haven't hurt anyone seems far worse the crime. Victim-less isn't a label, it's a statement of fact that no one was hurt and thus cannot claim injury; there should be no such crimes. "Regulatory crime" is way of putting a soft label on a terrible practice, punishing the innocent just because something "might" have happened. What you call luck, others call knowing their limits.

tempestn 11y ago
I know you may not mean this literally, but taken at face value, you're saying even attempted murder (assuming you don't end up harming your intended victim) shouldn't be a crime. I would actually argue that an attempted murder should be considered almost as great, if not as great, a crime as one that succeeded. Similarly for most crimes, in my opinion the intent is at least as important as the act itself. Basically just because someone hasn't been hurt, it doesn't mean that a behaviour is acceptable in society.
- unfamiliar 11y ago
  Nobody gets into a car drunk with the intention of harming someone else. With attempted murder there is clear intent to do harm. A better comparison would be to manslaughter - if you do something dangerous which leads to the accidental death of somebody you are punished. The question would be, if you do something dangerous and nobody happens to be hurt, should you still be punished? Should "attempted manslaughter" be a thing?
  - rayiner 11y ago
    No, but they do get into the car reckless as to harming someone else, which is a culpable state of mind as well. E.g. You shoot a gun into the air in downtown Chicago and the bullet happens not to kill anyone on the way back down. You didn't mean to kill any body, but it certainly was criminally reckless. Besides that, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Why is manslaughter different than murder? The only difference is the intent--the end result is the same (someone's dead). When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment?
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      > No, but they do get into the car reckless as to harming someone else False, you can be charged with DUI while perfectly sober; DUI applies to far more than alcohol. > Why is manslaughter different than murder? Manslaughter means accidental, murder means on purpose; if you don't see the difference, perhaps you need to think about that a bit harder. > When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment? If you don't see the difference between an accident and doing something on purpose as requiring different punishment, well then you just fundamentally disagree with about all of mankind. If your car tire blows and you hit another car and kill someone through no fault of your own, apparently you think that's an equal crime to murder. Really... c'mon... really?
      - heartbreak 11y ago
        YSK 'rayiner is a lawyer.
        gnaritas 11y ago
        Then he should know DUI applies to more than just drinking and shouldn't be making such a silly point. And being a lawyer means he knows the existing law, it doesn't mean his opinion about what the law should be in regards to punishment is any more valid than anyone else's.
        rayiner 11y ago
        I absolutely agree with your last sentence. My intention is not to stand on the law as authority, but try to work through the logic of the law. Why do we punish people criminally? For doing bad things with malicious intentions. Intention is the most important thing in criminal law, because a guy who shoots at someone is equally a bad, culpable person worthy of punishment whether or not his aim is very good. On the flip side, someone who kills someone while driving in an accident that could happen to anyone is not worthy of punishment while someone who kills someone intentionally with their car is worthy of being punished as a murderer. Even though the end result is the same--the intention is what matters. That's why drunk driving is illegal in and of itself. You make a conscious reckless decision to put other people at risk. Even if you don't hurt anyone, you're guilty of that act and that recklessness is a form of malicious intent justifying punishment.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    Exactly, and no, attempted manslaughter should not be a thing and that's basically what a DUI is.
- conceit 11y ago
  > (assuming you don't end up harming your intended victim) > I would actually argue that an attempted murder should be considered almost as great, if not as great, a crime as one that succeeded. You are implicitly saying that it does harm. Indeed, it does harm the psych, which might lead to physical harm in the long run.
  - clarky07 11y ago
    It would harm my psyche if I thought everyone on the road has been drinking. I actively avoid it during times when it is in fact more likely (New Years eve etc). People who think they know their limits kill people all the time.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      > People who think they know their limits kill people all the time. So do people who are tired, or old, or stressed, or any other number of reasons. People kill people all the time, singling out one group and basically charging them with pre-crimes is not just. The world is a dangerous place, jailing people so your "psyche" feels good is not just. The world is dangerous, how about you accept that and act accordingly rather than supporting jailing those who haven't hurt anyone.
      - clarky07 11y ago
        Perhaps, but drinking and driving is quite a bit more preventable than being stressed. Certainly people get distracted and accidents happen, but purposely driving impaired is in fact something different. That being said, generally speaking, a drunk driver who happens to not do anything wrong on the road is extremely unlikely to have any legal issues. Mostly they are going to have problems when they start swerving or exhibiting signs of being impaired. A tired driver who is swerving wildly is also likely to get pulled over.
        gnaritas 11y ago
        DUI punishes more than the impaired. > That being said, generally speaking, a drunk driver who happens to not do anything wrong on the road is extremely unlikely to have any legal issues. That might be true if it weren't for things like DUI checkpoints, which make it untrue. You can be perfectly fine to drive and still get caught and punished because of what are essentially baseless mass searches.
titanomachy 11y ago
So you're suggesting that people be allowed, for example, to practice medicine without a license right up to the point that they kill someone through incompetence?
- adanto6840 11y ago
  You bring up a great point. I'd argue that, instead of being required to go to medical school, you should be tested on the merits. If you meet the objective bar (no lawyer pun intended, though see California's attempt at doing this for the legal profession), then yes, you should be able to practice even without a multi-year degree.
  - smt88 11y ago
    One could consider med school to be a series of tests on the merits, including the subsequent internship/residency and licensing standards. It's just not possible to study at home and be educated enough to be a doctor. You need huge amounts of expensive resources (cadavers, equipment, live patients, etc.)
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      > One could consider med school to be a series of tests on the merits, including the subsequent internship/residency and licensing standards. Only if one doesn't understand that medical schools are a cartel. There are far more people qualified and willing to be doctors than are allowed to be doctors, cartels have to keep their supply low to keep their wages high.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    This makes more sense for professions that are "all books", so to say. E.g. law, where all you really need is a slightly longer test (or not even that). But this makes no sense for medical school, which teaches a lot that would be extremely difficult to test directly. Often the direct test would basically amount to going to medical school for some non-trivial amount of time anyways.

tempestn 11y ago

I know you may not mean this literally, but taken at face value, you're saying even attempted murder (assuming you don't end up harming your intended victim) shouldn't be a crime. I would actually argue that an attempted murder should be considered almost as great, if not as great, a crime as one that succeeded. Similarly for most crimes, in my opinion the intent is at least as important as the act itself. Basically just because someone hasn't been hurt, it doesn't mean that a behaviour is acceptable in society.

unfamiliar 11y ago
Nobody gets into a car drunk with the intention of harming someone else. With attempted murder there is clear intent to do harm. A better comparison would be to manslaughter - if you do something dangerous which leads to the accidental death of somebody you are punished. The question would be, if you do something dangerous and nobody happens to be hurt, should you still be punished? Should "attempted manslaughter" be a thing?
- rayiner 11y ago
  No, but they do get into the car reckless as to harming someone else, which is a culpable state of mind as well. E.g. You shoot a gun into the air in downtown Chicago and the bullet happens not to kill anyone on the way back down. You didn't mean to kill any body, but it certainly was criminally reckless. Besides that, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Why is manslaughter different than murder? The only difference is the intent--the end result is the same (someone's dead). When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment?
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > No, but they do get into the car reckless as to harming someone else False, you can be charged with DUI while perfectly sober; DUI applies to far more than alcohol. > Why is manslaughter different than murder? Manslaughter means accidental, murder means on purpose; if you don't see the difference, perhaps you need to think about that a bit harder. > When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment? If you don't see the difference between an accident and doing something on purpose as requiring different punishment, well then you just fundamentally disagree with about all of mankind. If your car tire blows and you hit another car and kill someone through no fault of your own, apparently you think that's an equal crime to murder. Really... c'mon... really?
    - heartbreak 11y ago
      YSK 'rayiner is a lawyer.
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        Then he should know DUI applies to more than just drinking and shouldn't be making such a silly point. And being a lawyer means he knows the existing law, it doesn't mean his opinion about what the law should be in regards to punishment is any more valid than anyone else's.
        rayiner 11y ago
        I absolutely agree with your last sentence. My intention is not to stand on the law as authority, but try to work through the logic of the law. Why do we punish people criminally? For doing bad things with malicious intentions. Intention is the most important thing in criminal law, because a guy who shoots at someone is equally a bad, culpable person worthy of punishment whether or not his aim is very good. On the flip side, someone who kills someone while driving in an accident that could happen to anyone is not worthy of punishment while someone who kills someone intentionally with their car is worthy of being punished as a murderer. Even though the end result is the same--the intention is what matters. That's why drunk driving is illegal in and of itself. You make a conscious reckless decision to put other people at risk. Even if you don't hurt anyone, you're guilty of that act and that recklessness is a form of malicious intent justifying punishment.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  Exactly, and no, attempted manslaughter should not be a thing and that's basically what a DUI is.
conceit 11y ago
> (assuming you don't end up harming your intended victim) > I would actually argue that an attempted murder should be considered almost as great, if not as great, a crime as one that succeeded. You are implicitly saying that it does harm. Indeed, it does harm the psych, which might lead to physical harm in the long run.
- clarky07 11y ago
  It would harm my psyche if I thought everyone on the road has been drinking. I actively avoid it during times when it is in fact more likely (New Years eve etc). People who think they know their limits kill people all the time.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > People who think they know their limits kill people all the time. So do people who are tired, or old, or stressed, or any other number of reasons. People kill people all the time, singling out one group and basically charging them with pre-crimes is not just. The world is a dangerous place, jailing people so your "psyche" feels good is not just. The world is dangerous, how about you accept that and act accordingly rather than supporting jailing those who haven't hurt anyone.
    - clarky07 11y ago
      Perhaps, but drinking and driving is quite a bit more preventable than being stressed. Certainly people get distracted and accidents happen, but purposely driving impaired is in fact something different. That being said, generally speaking, a drunk driver who happens to not do anything wrong on the road is extremely unlikely to have any legal issues. Mostly they are going to have problems when they start swerving or exhibiting signs of being impaired. A tired driver who is swerving wildly is also likely to get pulled over.
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        DUI punishes more than the impaired. > That being said, generally speaking, a drunk driver who happens to not do anything wrong on the road is extremely unlikely to have any legal issues. That might be true if it weren't for things like DUI checkpoints, which make it untrue. You can be perfectly fine to drive and still get caught and punished because of what are essentially baseless mass searches.

titanomachy 11y ago

So you're suggesting that people be allowed, for example, to practice medicine without a license right up to the point that they kill someone through incompetence?

adanto6840 11y ago
You bring up a great point. I'd argue that, instead of being required to go to medical school, you should be tested on the merits. If you meet the objective bar (no lawyer pun intended, though see California's attempt at doing this for the legal profession), then yes, you should be able to practice even without a multi-year degree.
- smt88 11y ago
  One could consider med school to be a series of tests on the merits, including the subsequent internship/residency and licensing standards. It's just not possible to study at home and be educated enough to be a doctor. You need huge amounts of expensive resources (cadavers, equipment, live patients, etc.)
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > One could consider med school to be a series of tests on the merits, including the subsequent internship/residency and licensing standards. Only if one doesn't understand that medical schools are a cartel. There are far more people qualified and willing to be doctors than are allowed to be doctors, cartels have to keep their supply low to keep their wages high.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  This makes more sense for professions that are "all books", so to say. E.g. law, where all you really need is a slightly longer test (or not even that). But this makes no sense for medical school, which teaches a lot that would be extremely difficult to test directly. Often the direct test would basically amount to going to medical school for some non-trivial amount of time anyways.