5 ms·

> - 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

> - 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.
- Gunax 7y ago
  And now we are back to why drugs laws were justified in the first place.
  - A2017U1 7y ago
    Am i missing something here? You're saying someone selfharming justifies criminal punishment? I'd love to have this conversation in a suburban mall food where the average bmi is >30
    - Gunax 7y ago
      No. Using drugs and driving fast are both victimless crimes. There is nothing criminal about them per se. I am saying that the same justification is used to justify both speed limits and drug prohibitions. My parent comment said (referring to speeding past a school bus without harming anyone): > 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. Pro drug-prohibitionists would argue: just because you can use heroin without hurting anyone does not mean it isn't generally hurtful. But it does lead to other crimes: theft, murder, child neglect, spousal abuse, rape, etc. and burdens society (medical, unemployment, homelessness). You don't have to agree with this justification of course. 'Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins' sounds simple. But what if people keep swinging their fists around and unintentionally hitting me? What if people are living on the street and stealing from me so they can spend all day swinging their arms around? What if my neighbour swings her arms around so much she gets dizzy then decides to drive-while-dizzy?
      - nyhc99 7y ago
        All those questions can be answered with "charge them with a crime after they commit one, not because you think they might commit one because they're [on drugs/obsessed with swinging fists around]" Stealing from you? Charge them with theft. Hitting you accidentally? Let's call that a misdemeanor. Driving while dizzy? Call it DWAI.
wetpaws 7y ago
Victimless crime imply that the action would have no direct or indirect victims. For example: if A shoots heroin it does not make other people addicts. Your case does imply possible victims this therefore it is an incorrect analogy.
- chasing 7y ago
  What if the money I spend on heroin helps make the heroin industry financially viable? What if my overdose winds up costing a ton of money in medical fees? What if I die and my mother is overwhelmed with grief? What if addiction causes me to lose my job and I'm forced to steal from a grocery store to survive? What if addiction makes me completely vulnerable to people willing to exploit that addiction for their own gain?
  - mikestew 7y ago
    What if it were all true? It would still be a victimless crime. As I understand it, those are secondary effects of what is still a victimless crime. I believe this also reduces the need for any further what-iffing.
    - chasing 7y ago
      wetpaws wrote: "Victimless crime imply that the action would have no direct or indirect victims." I posited some indirect victims. Maybe my point is that reality is way more complex than just "no victim, no crime."
  - imtringued 7y ago
    Ok, we will lock up all the addicts so mom doesn't have to be sad.
    - chasing 7y ago
      You read this thread and that’s the argument you thought I was making? Or did you just think that was a saucy zinger to aim at me? If it’s the former, reply and I’ll clarify my point. I definitely do not agree with what you wrote.
clarkmoody 7y ago
How about one step further? If you point a gun at someone but don't pull the trigger, no victim, right? Obviously not. The crime is threatening the life of the other person. In the case of speeding past the school bus, the crime is putting lives in danger by the imminent threat of a high-speed collision with your car. But now we've opened the can of worms of your actions posing a threat to someone else. Does this automatically lead back to total prohibition of any mind-altering substance, since you might be a threat to someone under the influence? There certainly is a lot to argue about, but starting from the premise of "no victim, no crime" instead of "for your own good" should get us quite a ways toward a more just society.
- thelittleone 7y ago
  >How about one step further? If you point a gun at someone but don't pull the trigger, no victim, right? This example isn't victimless. That someone has been terrified and will probably have psychological issues for the rest of their life.
- nyhc99 7y ago
  Does this automatically lead back to total prohibition of any mind-altering substance, since you might be a threat to someone under the influence? It's easy to argue 'no' there, because the key word is "might." In those other examples, your action is putting them in direct danger. If you take drugs, you still need to take further unrelated action to endanger others. You still need to get behind the wheel or pick up a gun. The drugs in your system aren't going to hurt someone, and it's purely a matter of mind-reading to assume that you "might" decide to hurt someone because you're on drugs. If we want to go down that route, we can just plug all our data into Google Judge and let it statistically decide who should be sent off to prison based on the likelihood that we might harm someone in the future.
bourgoin 7y ago
I don't think that's a good example of victimless crime. Negligently speeding past the school bus creates a situation where children are likely to get injured. The children are victims in the sense that they experience a higher probability of harm (i.e., danger). If you recklessly fire a bullet and it narrowly whizzes by me, I'm still a victim of the danger you created, and the crime was committed the instant you pulled the trigger. The classic prohibitionist argument against "no victim, no crime" is that society is the victim when an individual uses drugs, because a productive, healthy, social individual who becomes a drug addict stops contributing to society, or even becomes a drag on it, making the world a slightly worse place for everyone. And for some drugs that may be the case... but it's beyond me how the solution to that problem should be to persecute the addicts rather than try to help them live up to their full potential.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  Drugs pose danger, just like speeding. Driving under the influence, domestic violence, aggression.
  - cf141q5325 7y ago
    Those are crimes in itself not inherent side effects of drug use. Domestic violence and an increased aggression level are drug specific and driving under the influence is also possible with legal drugs. You can also become a similarly dangerous driver with enough sleep deprivation. Speeding on the other hand is reckless endangerment, if you are to fast, your stopping distance will become to short for the given environment. As a result, you will run over a kid if one crosses the street at a dangerous position. You driving to fast at this position will have the effect of a run over kid, with the only variables being whether or not a kid is just crossing the street at this point. You already made the decision to drive to fast to have a sufficient stopping distance. Your similar decision of taking drugs doesnt have inherent consequences, it only has an influence of the decisions you make after that, for example a drunk barfight. The same could however also be said for other things which influence your mood. Driving under the influence is a much better comparison to speeding than druguse itself. Not sleeping enough is not dangerous, however driving while dozing off is
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
I've always thought speeding was an interesting case. At least in the UK if I drive at 20mph over the speed limit and get caught I might get a small fine. If on another day I committed the same offence but happened to cause a fatal accident then I will almost certainly end up in prison. Yet in both cases I would have started the day with the same disregard for peoples safety, it was only a matter of luck that changed the outcome.
- lordgrenville 7y ago
  Related to Bernard Williams' concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck
- Jataman606 7y ago
  It doesnt have to be true. If you are speeding while 100% focused on the road and with good weather, nothing obstructing your vision etc. you dont disregard safety same way as when speeding in area where there are multiple pedestrians while talking with friend or something.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    I think you are missing the point, try assuming the same environment but two different days. One where you are lucky and another where you aren't.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Speeding is not an essential element there. You could be driving 30 on a bog standard road, a child could trip and fall under your car, and bam.
pinkfoot 7y ago
Is the speedlimit where children get off school busses 100mph? I’m sure you can work out the answer yourself.

> - 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.

Gunax 7y ago
And now we are back to why drugs laws were justified in the first place.
- A2017U1 7y ago
  Am i missing something here? You're saying someone selfharming justifies criminal punishment? I'd love to have this conversation in a suburban mall food where the average bmi is >30
  - Gunax 7y ago
    No. Using drugs and driving fast are both victimless crimes. There is nothing criminal about them per se. I am saying that the same justification is used to justify both speed limits and drug prohibitions. My parent comment said (referring to speeding past a school bus without harming anyone): > 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. Pro drug-prohibitionists would argue: just because you can use heroin without hurting anyone does not mean it isn't generally hurtful. But it does lead to other crimes: theft, murder, child neglect, spousal abuse, rape, etc. and burdens society (medical, unemployment, homelessness). You don't have to agree with this justification of course. 'Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins' sounds simple. But what if people keep swinging their fists around and unintentionally hitting me? What if people are living on the street and stealing from me so they can spend all day swinging their arms around? What if my neighbour swings her arms around so much she gets dizzy then decides to drive-while-dizzy?
    - nyhc99 7y ago
      All those questions can be answered with "charge them with a crime after they commit one, not because you think they might commit one because they're [on drugs/obsessed with swinging fists around]" Stealing from you? Charge them with theft. Hitting you accidentally? Let's call that a misdemeanor. Driving while dizzy? Call it DWAI.

wetpaws 7y ago

Victimless crime imply that the action would have no direct or indirect victims. For example: if A shoots heroin it does not make other people addicts. Your case does imply possible victims this therefore it is an incorrect analogy.

chasing 7y ago
What if the money I spend on heroin helps make the heroin industry financially viable? What if my overdose winds up costing a ton of money in medical fees? What if I die and my mother is overwhelmed with grief? What if addiction causes me to lose my job and I'm forced to steal from a grocery store to survive? What if addiction makes me completely vulnerable to people willing to exploit that addiction for their own gain?
- mikestew 7y ago
  What if it were all true? It would still be a victimless crime. As I understand it, those are secondary effects of what is still a victimless crime. I believe this also reduces the need for any further what-iffing.
  - chasing 7y ago
    wetpaws wrote: "Victimless crime imply that the action would have no direct or indirect victims." I posited some indirect victims. Maybe my point is that reality is way more complex than just "no victim, no crime."
- imtringued 7y ago
  Ok, we will lock up all the addicts so mom doesn't have to be sad.
  - chasing 7y ago
    You read this thread and that’s the argument you thought I was making? Or did you just think that was a saucy zinger to aim at me? If it’s the former, reply and I’ll clarify my point. I definitely do not agree with what you wrote.

clarkmoody 7y ago

How about one step further? If you point a gun at someone but don't pull the trigger, no victim, right? Obviously not. The crime is threatening the life of the other person. In the case of speeding past the school bus, the crime is putting lives in danger by the imminent threat of a high-speed collision with your car. But now we've opened the can of worms of your actions posing a threat to someone else. Does this automatically lead back to total prohibition of any mind-altering substance, since you might be a threat to someone under the influence? There certainly is a lot to argue about, but starting from the premise of "no victim, no crime" instead of "for your own good" should get us quite a ways toward a more just society.

thelittleone 7y ago
>How about one step further? If you point a gun at someone but don't pull the trigger, no victim, right? This example isn't victimless. That someone has been terrified and will probably have psychological issues for the rest of their life.
nyhc99 7y ago
Does this automatically lead back to total prohibition of any mind-altering substance, since you might be a threat to someone under the influence? It's easy to argue 'no' there, because the key word is "might." In those other examples, your action is putting them in direct danger. If you take drugs, you still need to take further unrelated action to endanger others. You still need to get behind the wheel or pick up a gun. The drugs in your system aren't going to hurt someone, and it's purely a matter of mind-reading to assume that you "might" decide to hurt someone because you're on drugs. If we want to go down that route, we can just plug all our data into Google Judge and let it statistically decide who should be sent off to prison based on the likelihood that we might harm someone in the future.

bourgoin 7y ago

I don't think that's a good example of victimless crime. Negligently speeding past the school bus creates a situation where children are likely to get injured. The children are victims in the sense that they experience a higher probability of harm (i.e., danger). If you recklessly fire a bullet and it narrowly whizzes by me, I'm still a victim of the danger you created, and the crime was committed the instant you pulled the trigger. The classic prohibitionist argument against "no victim, no crime" is that society is the victim when an individual uses drugs, because a productive, healthy, social individual who becomes a drug addict stops contributing to society, or even becomes a drag on it, making the world a slightly worse place for everyone. And for some drugs that may be the case... but it's beyond me how the solution to that problem should be to persecute the addicts rather than try to help them live up to their full potential.

paulddraper 7y ago
Drugs pose danger, just like speeding. Driving under the influence, domestic violence, aggression.
- cf141q5325 7y ago
  Those are crimes in itself not inherent side effects of drug use. Domestic violence and an increased aggression level are drug specific and driving under the influence is also possible with legal drugs. You can also become a similarly dangerous driver with enough sleep deprivation. Speeding on the other hand is reckless endangerment, if you are to fast, your stopping distance will become to short for the given environment. As a result, you will run over a kid if one crosses the street at a dangerous position. You driving to fast at this position will have the effect of a run over kid, with the only variables being whether or not a kid is just crossing the street at this point. You already made the decision to drive to fast to have a sufficient stopping distance. Your similar decision of taking drugs doesnt have inherent consequences, it only has an influence of the decisions you make after that, for example a drunk barfight. The same could however also be said for other things which influence your mood. Driving under the influence is a much better comparison to speeding than druguse itself. Not sleeping enough is not dangerous, however driving while dozing off is

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

I've always thought speeding was an interesting case. At least in the UK if I drive at 20mph over the speed limit and get caught I might get a small fine. If on another day I committed the same offence but happened to cause a fatal accident then I will almost certainly end up in prison. Yet in both cases I would have started the day with the same disregard for peoples safety, it was only a matter of luck that changed the outcome.

lordgrenville 7y ago
Related to Bernard Williams' concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck
Jataman606 7y ago
It doesnt have to be true. If you are speeding while 100% focused on the road and with good weather, nothing obstructing your vision etc. you dont disregard safety same way as when speeding in area where there are multiple pedestrians while talking with friend or something.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  I think you are missing the point, try assuming the same environment but two different days. One where you are lucky and another where you aren't.
esotericn 7y ago
Speeding is not an essential element there. You could be driving 30 on a bog standard road, a child could trip and fall under your car, and bam.

pinkfoot 7y ago

Is the speedlimit where children get off school busses 100mph? I’m sure you can work out the answer yourself.