3 ms·

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

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.

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.