5 ms·

It always felt weird to me that most of the rationale for policing drug use is based on preventing the crimes a user might commit while on drugs, rather than ju

by jadell 7y ago

It always felt weird to me that most of the rationale for policing drug use is based on preventing the crimes a user might commit while on drugs, rather than just the prosecuting the crimes they actually do commit while on drugs. "You can't do heroin because you'll get addicted and might steal in order to fuel your addiction." "But I haven't actually stolen anything yet, so what crime has been committed?" Are there any other cases of a victim-less activity where we preemptively arrest/prosecute people because that activity might lead to crime someday?

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Speeding. Public intoxication. Keeping an attractive nuisance.
- geggam 7y ago
  All victimless crimes. Oddly enough in AZ you are supposed to have a victim for a crime yet you can be charged with criminal speeding and there be no victim.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Threatening the public is not victimless. Not sure where folks are coming up with that. I can fire a gun at a crowd, and if it doesn't hit anybody, its 'victimless'. Not a crime?
    - geggam 7y ago
      so lets follow that logic... you are driving a car down the street and because you could screw up and hit me you are attempting murder and should be charged ? You are so far into the wrong here its sad... not only sad but the fact you cant see it is scary for the future of this nation
      - NikkiA 7y ago
        Reckless driving is a crime, yes.
        geggam 7y ago
        Elements of a crime.... Legality (must be a law) ... Actus reus (Human conduct) ... Causation (human conduct must cause harm) ... Harm (to some other/thing) ... Concurrence (State of Mind and Human Conduct) ... Mens Rea (State of Mind; "guilty mind") ... Punishment. Without a victim you have no crime
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Speeding and attractive nuisances are only victimless if you squint, as they both pretty clearly are statistically harmful to others (not when I speed a bunch of people feel the need to say I'm sure). Public intoxication less so, but it is also mostly used as a pretext to remove people from public spaces in cases where it is obvious they shouldn't be there. Speeding is also mostly treated as a minor infraction, not quite a crime. Sure, if you really do it good, you can get detained for an extended period of time, but you really have to do it good to end up in that situation.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    The reason people get mostly minor monetary fines for speeding is because we as a society really don't care if people violate the statute so long as they're not being unreasonable about it and it's mostly used as a revenue/probably cause/fishing tool. Ditto for public drunkedness, don't be an ass and it's not a problem. Speeding, public intoxication, etc. in the typical cases don't have victims because we as a society have decided that we are not victimized by small increase in risk of a negative outcome. However, writing statues that we expect to be violated and then leaving it up to the cops' discretion is not exactly a recipe for the fairest outcome.
- jadell 7y ago
  Attractive nuisance is a tort, not a crime. No one gets arrested for it, they get sued if someone gets injured. Speeding is arguably not victimless. Someone pointed out the "shooting into a crowd without hitting anyone" analogy, which is apt. You're engaging in immediately threatening and dangerous behavior. Public intoxication is also not victimless; that's the "disorderly" part of "drunk and disorderly" (whether it gets enforced correctly/equally is a different discussion.) This is actually a great example of my point: you can get as drunk as you want, and no one will care until you start disturbing the peace, being belligerent, damaging property, urinating in public spaces, etc. If you're drunk and sitting in a bar quietly, it's not a problem. We don't arrest you because you might drive drunk later, we wait until you actually drive drunk. We treat other drugs completely differently.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    "Shooting into a crowd" is an intentionally reductionist comparison meant to remove nuance so the reader reaches a specific conclusion. The fact of the matter is that we (we = society) do not condone any level of shooting into a crowd whereas we find certain situation specific levels of drunkenness and speeding perfectly fine. Speeding, public intoxication, etc. in the typical cases don't have victims because we as a society have decided that we are not victimized by small increase in risk of a negative outcome. However, there is some situation dependent hard to pin down threshold where we decide society is victimized and basically everyone agrees the crime is worth prosecuting.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      It was meant to make clear the 'increased risk to the public' issue, which was apparently received loud and clear. I think you made all the rest up. "We as a society" I read as very subjective. I for instance don't regard risky public behavior as victimless. Am I not part of your society?

by jadell 7y ago

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Speeding. Public intoxication. Keeping an attractive nuisance.

geggam 7y ago
All victimless crimes. Oddly enough in AZ you are supposed to have a victim for a crime yet you can be charged with criminal speeding and there be no victim.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Threatening the public is not victimless. Not sure where folks are coming up with that. I can fire a gun at a crowd, and if it doesn't hit anybody, its 'victimless'. Not a crime?
  - geggam 7y ago
    so lets follow that logic... you are driving a car down the street and because you could screw up and hit me you are attempting murder and should be charged ? You are so far into the wrong here its sad... not only sad but the fact you cant see it is scary for the future of this nation
    - NikkiA 7y ago
      Reckless driving is a crime, yes.
      - geggam 7y ago
        Elements of a crime.... Legality (must be a law) ... Actus reus (Human conduct) ... Causation (human conduct must cause harm) ... Harm (to some other/thing) ... Concurrence (State of Mind and Human Conduct) ... Mens Rea (State of Mind; "guilty mind") ... Punishment. Without a victim you have no crime
maxerickson 7y ago
Speeding and attractive nuisances are only victimless if you squint, as they both pretty clearly are statistically harmful to others (not when I speed a bunch of people feel the need to say I'm sure). Public intoxication less so, but it is also mostly used as a pretext to remove people from public spaces in cases where it is obvious they shouldn't be there. Speeding is also mostly treated as a minor infraction, not quite a crime. Sure, if you really do it good, you can get detained for an extended period of time, but you really have to do it good to end up in that situation.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  The reason people get mostly minor monetary fines for speeding is because we as a society really don't care if people violate the statute so long as they're not being unreasonable about it and it's mostly used as a revenue/probably cause/fishing tool. Ditto for public drunkedness, don't be an ass and it's not a problem. Speeding, public intoxication, etc. in the typical cases don't have victims because we as a society have decided that we are not victimized by small increase in risk of a negative outcome. However, writing statues that we expect to be violated and then leaving it up to the cops' discretion is not exactly a recipe for the fairest outcome.
jadell 7y ago
Attractive nuisance is a tort, not a crime. No one gets arrested for it, they get sued if someone gets injured. Speeding is arguably not victimless. Someone pointed out the "shooting into a crowd without hitting anyone" analogy, which is apt. You're engaging in immediately threatening and dangerous behavior. Public intoxication is also not victimless; that's the "disorderly" part of "drunk and disorderly" (whether it gets enforced correctly/equally is a different discussion.) This is actually a great example of my point: you can get as drunk as you want, and no one will care until you start disturbing the peace, being belligerent, damaging property, urinating in public spaces, etc. If you're drunk and sitting in a bar quietly, it's not a problem. We don't arrest you because you might drive drunk later, we wait until you actually drive drunk. We treat other drugs completely differently.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  "Shooting into a crowd" is an intentionally reductionist comparison meant to remove nuance so the reader reaches a specific conclusion. The fact of the matter is that we (we = society) do not condone any level of shooting into a crowd whereas we find certain situation specific levels of drunkenness and speeding perfectly fine. Speeding, public intoxication, etc. in the typical cases don't have victims because we as a society have decided that we are not victimized by small increase in risk of a negative outcome. However, there is some situation dependent hard to pin down threshold where we decide society is victimized and basically everyone agrees the crime is worth prosecuting.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    It was meant to make clear the 'increased risk to the public' issue, which was apparently received loud and clear. I think you made all the rest up. "We as a society" I read as very subjective. I for instance don't regard risky public behavior as victimless. Am I not part of your society?