11 ms·

With two simple rules you could clear up so much absurdity in the criminal justice system and in the public perception of the law: - No victim, no crime - Leg

With two simple rules you could clear up so much absurdity in the criminal justice system and in the public perception of the law: - No victim, no crime - Legal != moral

ng12 7y ago
By purchasing heroin/cocaine you are virtually guaranteed to be financially supporting a narco-terrorist group.
- colonwqbang 7y ago
  You could say the same about purchasing alcohol in the 1920's. But today I'm sure you don't feel you're supporting organised crime when you have a beer.
  - throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
    ... well it’s not the 1920s, so you’re not supporting organized crime...
- toolz 7y ago
  Untrue, legal suppliers are already supplying coca and poppy plants for medicinal purposes. So there's no reason to believe legalization wouldn't grow that industry just like the legal marijuana industry is growing.
- cr0sh 7y ago
  One could extend that kind of reasoning to a number of so-called "legal" products and services being sold today. Either directly or indirectly (degrees of separation), many simple acts of commerce fund things most would find abhorrent. Diamonds are most definitely on that list still - despite all the noise and promises made; I am fairly certain so-called "blood diamonds" are still a part of the trade. Gasoline (more concretely, oil) is another. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that various renewables have their own problems in a similar vein... You can probably think of others.
  - victorbojica 7y ago
    The clothing industry also. There are countless clothing mills around India, Vietnam and a few other countries. Child labour is king there. Fast-fashion gave rise to this along with our insatiable desire for newer and cheaper clothes. There is also the coffee industry, which at least has the fair trade program, that helps the small farmers get the money they deserve instead of being pressured to lower prices by the distributors.
  - mantap 7y ago
    Maybe the reason we don't ban these things is that it would be hard to enforce. How can a customs officer verify if clothes were made in a sweatshop? Otherwise it sounds like a great idea to ban these things.
  - marcoperaza 7y ago
    And we have a process for determining which ones we act upon or not: the legislative process.
- CapitalistCartr 7y ago
  Thanks to the Federal War on Some Drugs.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- code_duck 7y ago
  That's really only because it's illegal. Products like chocolate have a strong connection to child slavery, but I rarely see anyone suggest that chocolate should be banned and users of chocolate imprisoned.
- flukus 7y ago
  No, the government supports those groups by granting them a monopoly on a lucrative industry. Get rid of prohibition and those narco-terrorist groups disappear.
- int_19h 7y ago
  By paying taxes to the US government, you are virtually guaranteed to be financially supporting crimes against humanity somewhere in the world (Saudi Arabia comes to mind right away, but the list is truly long) - and yet here we are.
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
That doesn't seem that clear cut - in the case of a drug mule, is there a victim? Does someone consuming illegal pornography, who had no part in the filming, get in trouble for their being a victim at all? If so, does someone watching a video of a murder? How many degrees of separation are we talking for the victim?
- toolz 7y ago
  With illegal pornography there is a victim and funding the criminal would logically make someone complicit. Same goes for funding murder videos. There is a victim so there is a crime. If you watch the videos of murder/porn for free - are you actually enabling the crime to happen? That's a gray area for some, but for me I'm fine with that being ignored so we can focus all resources on stopping the clear-cut criminals who made the videos.
- colonwqbang 7y ago
  Smoking kills and is addictive. If I die from smoking, is it the fault of the girl working in the tobacco shop next door? Of course not. I knew that smoking was dangerous (it says so on the box, and it should) but I did it anyway. Maybe it was hard to stop, but that doesn't mean that it's another person's fault. Maybe it was nobody's fault.
chasing 7y ago
> - No victim, no crime So if I drive at at 100mph past a school bus where kids are getting off and I happen to not hit anyone the parents should be, like, "no harm, no foul!"?
- teh_klev 7y ago
  I hate to break this to you, but this is a prime example of "reductio ad absurdum": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  - fooker 7y ago
    Are you saying people don't speed where they aren't supposed to?
    - teh_klev 7y ago
      No, I'm saying that the example given by chasing isn't in the same ballpark as abusing/using "illegal" drugs for personal use.
  - ben174 7y ago
    Is it though? Grandparent said "with two simple rules". But now the rule has become less simple, as parent has demonstrated.
  - peteretep 7y ago
    > I hate to break this to you, but this is a prime example of "reductio ad absurdum" So? That's a valid debate technique, not a logical fallacy.
- Causality1 7y ago
  Just because they are not the victim of murder or assault doesn't mean they're not a victim. You threatened them. You endangered them. They are victims of being put in danger by you.
  - 7y ago
kazagistar 7y ago
I have an alternative simple rule: laws should save more victims then they create. And anyone who is punished by the legal system counts as a victim of the legal system here of course. In other words, it's a matter of violence reduction, and the war on drugs is a dramatic failure by this metric.
- jonfw 7y ago
  > laws should save more victims then they create This isn't a simple rule at all. How do you quantify this?
  - singron 7y ago
    In particular, the courts usually can't make victims whole in criminal cases. E.g. an eye for an eye doubles the number of eye-less people but cures nobody. You would need to quantify crimes that don't occur because potential criminals are deterred, currently incarcerated, or have been rehabilitated. We can't really measure this without making the law, observing changes in victim rates, and assuming causation.
- PureParadigm 7y ago
  Maybe you need to qualify this with the legal system should also only punish those convicted of crimes. Perhaps threatening to punish family members for crimes is an effective deterrent and ends up preventing more crimes (and thus fewer victims overall), but this isn't a fair system nor one I'd like to live in.
- gdhbcc 7y ago
  Thats a good way of ensuring laws only supply to the weakest in society. "If you imprison me my very large company will shut down and everyone there will lose their jobs. Guess you can't imprison me now, since that will cause more harm than letting me go" - any rich person
  - int_19h 7y ago
    Unless the person being imprisoned can actually show a net reduction in jobs, this doesn't follow.
fooker 7y ago
What if you paid a Hitman and he failed? No victim, right?
- wetpaws 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
knicholes 7y ago
My Ethics and Values teacher in college told us "Law is the lowest form of morality."

With two simple rules you could clear up so much absurdity in the criminal justice system and in the public perception of the law: - No victim, no crime - Legal != moral

ng12 7y ago

By purchasing heroin/cocaine you are virtually guaranteed to be financially supporting a narco-terrorist group.

colonwqbang 7y ago
You could say the same about purchasing alcohol in the 1920's. But today I'm sure you don't feel you're supporting organised crime when you have a beer.
- throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
  ... well it’s not the 1920s, so you’re not supporting organized crime...
toolz 7y ago
Untrue, legal suppliers are already supplying coca and poppy plants for medicinal purposes. So there's no reason to believe legalization wouldn't grow that industry just like the legal marijuana industry is growing.
cr0sh 7y ago
One could extend that kind of reasoning to a number of so-called "legal" products and services being sold today. Either directly or indirectly (degrees of separation), many simple acts of commerce fund things most would find abhorrent. Diamonds are most definitely on that list still - despite all the noise and promises made; I am fairly certain so-called "blood diamonds" are still a part of the trade. Gasoline (more concretely, oil) is another. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that various renewables have their own problems in a similar vein... You can probably think of others.
- victorbojica 7y ago
  The clothing industry also. There are countless clothing mills around India, Vietnam and a few other countries. Child labour is king there. Fast-fashion gave rise to this along with our insatiable desire for newer and cheaper clothes. There is also the coffee industry, which at least has the fair trade program, that helps the small farmers get the money they deserve instead of being pressured to lower prices by the distributors.
- mantap 7y ago
  Maybe the reason we don't ban these things is that it would be hard to enforce. How can a customs officer verify if clothes were made in a sweatshop? Otherwise it sounds like a great idea to ban these things.
- marcoperaza 7y ago
  And we have a process for determining which ones we act upon or not: the legislative process.
CapitalistCartr 7y ago
Thanks to the Federal War on Some Drugs.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
code_duck 7y ago
That's really only because it's illegal. Products like chocolate have a strong connection to child slavery, but I rarely see anyone suggest that chocolate should be banned and users of chocolate imprisoned.
flukus 7y ago
No, the government supports those groups by granting them a monopoly on a lucrative industry. Get rid of prohibition and those narco-terrorist groups disappear.
int_19h 7y ago
By paying taxes to the US government, you are virtually guaranteed to be financially supporting crimes against humanity somewhere in the world (Saudi Arabia comes to mind right away, but the list is truly long) - and yet here we are.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

That doesn't seem that clear cut - in the case of a drug mule, is there a victim? Does someone consuming illegal pornography, who had no part in the filming, get in trouble for their being a victim at all? If so, does someone watching a video of a murder? How many degrees of separation are we talking for the victim?

toolz 7y ago
With illegal pornography there is a victim and funding the criminal would logically make someone complicit. Same goes for funding murder videos. There is a victim so there is a crime. If you watch the videos of murder/porn for free - are you actually enabling the crime to happen? That's a gray area for some, but for me I'm fine with that being ignored so we can focus all resources on stopping the clear-cut criminals who made the videos.
colonwqbang 7y ago
Smoking kills and is addictive. If I die from smoking, is it the fault of the girl working in the tobacco shop next door? Of course not. I knew that smoking was dangerous (it says so on the box, and it should) but I did it anyway. Maybe it was hard to stop, but that doesn't mean that it's another person's fault. Maybe it was nobody's fault.

chasing 7y ago

> - No victim, no crime So if I drive at at 100mph past a school bus where kids are getting off and I happen to not hit anyone the parents should be, like, "no harm, no foul!"?

teh_klev 7y ago
I hate to break this to you, but this is a prime example of "reductio ad absurdum": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
- fooker 7y ago
  Are you saying people don't speed where they aren't supposed to?
  - teh_klev 7y ago
    No, I'm saying that the example given by chasing isn't in the same ballpark as abusing/using "illegal" drugs for personal use.
- ben174 7y ago
  Is it though? Grandparent said "with two simple rules". But now the rule has become less simple, as parent has demonstrated.
- peteretep 7y ago
  > I hate to break this to you, but this is a prime example of "reductio ad absurdum" So? That's a valid debate technique, not a logical fallacy.
Causality1 7y ago
Just because they are not the victim of murder or assault doesn't mean they're not a victim. You threatened them. You endangered them. They are victims of being put in danger by you.
- 7y ago

kazagistar 7y ago

I have an alternative simple rule: laws should save more victims then they create. And anyone who is punished by the legal system counts as a victim of the legal system here of course. In other words, it's a matter of violence reduction, and the war on drugs is a dramatic failure by this metric.

jonfw 7y ago
> laws should save more victims then they create This isn't a simple rule at all. How do you quantify this?
- singron 7y ago
  In particular, the courts usually can't make victims whole in criminal cases. E.g. an eye for an eye doubles the number of eye-less people but cures nobody. You would need to quantify crimes that don't occur because potential criminals are deterred, currently incarcerated, or have been rehabilitated. We can't really measure this without making the law, observing changes in victim rates, and assuming causation.
PureParadigm 7y ago
Maybe you need to qualify this with the legal system should also only punish those convicted of crimes. Perhaps threatening to punish family members for crimes is an effective deterrent and ends up preventing more crimes (and thus fewer victims overall), but this isn't a fair system nor one I'd like to live in.
gdhbcc 7y ago
Thats a good way of ensuring laws only supply to the weakest in society. "If you imprison me my very large company will shut down and everyone there will lose their jobs. Guess you can't imprison me now, since that will cause more harm than letting me go" - any rich person
- int_19h 7y ago
  Unless the person being imprisoned can actually show a net reduction in jobs, this doesn't follow.

fooker 7y ago

What if you paid a Hitman and he failed? No victim, right?

wetpaws 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

knicholes 7y ago

My Ethics and Values teacher in college told us "Law is the lowest form of morality."