7 ms·

> The general move towards "crime is no big deal" and "should not impact you later in life" is quite disgusting. I don't see any such overall shift occurring.

> The general move towards "crime is no big deal" and "should not impact you later in life" is quite disgusting. I don't see any such overall shift occurring. What I do see is a positive evolution that deprioritizes victimless crimes such as doing drugs which preserves our resources so they can be focused on crimes with victims.

whatshisface 7y ago
Many drug crimes, like dealing and driving while intoxicated, do have victims.
- oldmanhorton 7y ago
  Parent said doing drugs, not dealing or driving while doing. Both dealing (in the victim-ful sense of black and gray market dealing) and driving while intoxicated are still heavily prosecute, no one is easily forgiving those
  - wil421 7y ago
    Most people doing drugs are driving with them as well. Addicts aren’t going to stop just because they need to drive to the store. Not all drug users are addicts but addicts, especially functioning ones, are doing the day to day stuff everyone else does. Doesn’t matter if we like it or not scientists are trying to develop a THC test for driving in legal states. It’s going suck for a lot of people until they get it right. FYI, I believe in a form of decriminalization for drug use. I call it carrot or stick.
    - benzoate 7y ago
      The same could be said of alcohol, but I doubt most people who are drinking are also driving while under the influence.
      - wil421 7y ago
        There’s a test and a legal limit for alcohol. At the moment for drugs, even prescribed ones, any amount is enough for a DUI. In my state, I can legally have 3 beers in an hour and drive but couldn’t have one hit of a joint and legally drive.
        ViViDboarder 7y ago
        I don’t avoid driving drunk because it can be tested for. I avoid it because it’s dangerous. It’s absurd to think that most people who do other types of drugs are willing to drive while intoxicated while they aren’t while drunk.
        wil421 7y ago
        I didn’t say what you alluded to in your last paragraph. Legally people can and do drink and drive, it’s illegal to consume drugs and drive in any amount (in my state). My personal experiences in high school and college lead me to believe a lot of people think it’s ok to smoke and drive and to some extent do other things. While they will avoid drunk driving just because it’s much easier to detect alcohol.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>I don't see any such overall shift occurring. What I do see is a positive evolution that deprioritizes victimless crimes such as doing drugs which preserves our resources so they can be focused on crimes with victims. I agree with regard to public opinion but the people who set policy keep trying to sneak policies that decriminalize petty crime with a victim into policies that are portrayed as reducing victimless crime. Anecdotal example: A local to me DA with political ambitions released a list (not sure if it was a proposed list or final list) of crimes he wasn't gonna prosecute. The list was mostly sensible but it included things like "theft under $250" which is insane because without the risk of prosecution the ROI on petty theft becomes positive and you are basically encouraging it. Predictably, there was widespread backlash against this (proposed?) policy. I think this kind of thing is what the GP is talking about.
- conception 7y ago
  Probably because "theft under $250" shouldn't be a jailable offense but an infraction or low-level misdemeanor involving a fine and community service. Putting someone in jail over $250 or less isn't good for society - cost or morality wise.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    I agree, but this wasn't a "I'm gonna ask the judge to sentence people reasonably" list. It was an "I will not prosecute" list.
    - ryandrake 7y ago
      We can probably agree it doesn’t make sense to go through the cost and effort to prosecute someone who stole $0.01. And it does make sense to prosecute someone who stole $1,000,000. So there is some threshold number on the border between “makes sense” and “doesn’t make sense”. What is that number and how do you calculate it?
      - xyzzyz 7y ago
fgnkj 7y ago
Humans don't live in a vacuum. I don't believe "victimless crimes" exist. There is always a victim even if it is yourself.
- ch4s3 7y ago
  > There is always a victim even if it is yourself. That's simply nonsense, and incredibly authoritarian. In any free society the state simply shouldn't be probing into the private lives and bodies of citizens. If an adult makes the informed decision to do something to their own body, they are not a victim. Thinking otherwise strips people of their agency.
  - fgnkj 7y ago
    I'm okay with that if we take out public healthcare, handouts, etc. If you want to be an outcast, go ahead, but deal with the consequences.
    - ch4s3 7y ago
      By your logic the government should be banning sugar, forcing people to exercise, and on and on. Using the welfare state as an excuse for the government to control the private lives of citizens is pernicious to individual liberty at best, and totalitarian at worst. A safety nets don't exist to allow for the state to be an ever watchful and scolding parent, but rather to provide a floor so that people don't fall in to miserable situations. Furthermore, the idea that one's actions in private, concerning only their own body, should make them a social outcast is laughably puritanical. Inclusion in society is about how one engages in the public sphere.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    Although I agree with what you're saying, the philosophy isn't so clear cut; even some strands of libertarian thought recognize harms against oneself, but the "oneself" is in the future, and could be considered a separate person. By an extension of the harm principle, it could be permissible to illegalize things which cause harm against people in future - the sale of cigarettes, for example.

whatshisface 7y ago

Many drug crimes, like dealing and driving while intoxicated, do have victims.

oldmanhorton 7y ago
Parent said doing drugs, not dealing or driving while doing. Both dealing (in the victim-ful sense of black and gray market dealing) and driving while intoxicated are still heavily prosecute, no one is easily forgiving those
- wil421 7y ago
  Most people doing drugs are driving with them as well. Addicts aren’t going to stop just because they need to drive to the store. Not all drug users are addicts but addicts, especially functioning ones, are doing the day to day stuff everyone else does. Doesn’t matter if we like it or not scientists are trying to develop a THC test for driving in legal states. It’s going suck for a lot of people until they get it right. FYI, I believe in a form of decriminalization for drug use. I call it carrot or stick.
  - benzoate 7y ago
    The same could be said of alcohol, but I doubt most people who are drinking are also driving while under the influence.
    - wil421 7y ago
      There’s a test and a legal limit for alcohol. At the moment for drugs, even prescribed ones, any amount is enough for a DUI. In my state, I can legally have 3 beers in an hour and drive but couldn’t have one hit of a joint and legally drive.
      - ViViDboarder 7y ago
        I don’t avoid driving drunk because it can be tested for. I avoid it because it’s dangerous. It’s absurd to think that most people who do other types of drugs are willing to drive while intoxicated while they aren’t while drunk.
        wil421 7y ago
        I didn’t say what you alluded to in your last paragraph. Legally people can and do drink and drive, it’s illegal to consume drugs and drive in any amount (in my state). My personal experiences in high school and college lead me to believe a lot of people think it’s ok to smoke and drive and to some extent do other things. While they will avoid drunk driving just because it’s much easier to detect alcohol.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>I don't see any such overall shift occurring. What I do see is a positive evolution that deprioritizes victimless crimes such as doing drugs which preserves our resources so they can be focused on crimes with victims. I agree with regard to public opinion but the people who set policy keep trying to sneak policies that decriminalize petty crime with a victim into policies that are portrayed as reducing victimless crime. Anecdotal example: A local to me DA with political ambitions released a list (not sure if it was a proposed list or final list) of crimes he wasn't gonna prosecute. The list was mostly sensible but it included things like "theft under $250" which is insane because without the risk of prosecution the ROI on petty theft becomes positive and you are basically encouraging it. Predictably, there was widespread backlash against this (proposed?) policy. I think this kind of thing is what the GP is talking about.

conception 7y ago
Probably because "theft under $250" shouldn't be a jailable offense but an infraction or low-level misdemeanor involving a fine and community service. Putting someone in jail over $250 or less isn't good for society - cost or morality wise.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  I agree, but this wasn't a "I'm gonna ask the judge to sentence people reasonably" list. It was an "I will not prosecute" list.
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    We can probably agree it doesn’t make sense to go through the cost and effort to prosecute someone who stole $0.01. And it does make sense to prosecute someone who stole $1,000,000. So there is some threshold number on the border between “makes sense” and “doesn’t make sense”. What is that number and how do you calculate it?
    - xyzzyz 7y ago

fgnkj 7y ago

Humans don't live in a vacuum. I don't believe "victimless crimes" exist. There is always a victim even if it is yourself.

ch4s3 7y ago
> There is always a victim even if it is yourself. That's simply nonsense, and incredibly authoritarian. In any free society the state simply shouldn't be probing into the private lives and bodies of citizens. If an adult makes the informed decision to do something to their own body, they are not a victim. Thinking otherwise strips people of their agency.
- fgnkj 7y ago
  I'm okay with that if we take out public healthcare, handouts, etc. If you want to be an outcast, go ahead, but deal with the consequences.
  - ch4s3 7y ago
    By your logic the government should be banning sugar, forcing people to exercise, and on and on. Using the welfare state as an excuse for the government to control the private lives of citizens is pernicious to individual liberty at best, and totalitarian at worst. A safety nets don't exist to allow for the state to be an ever watchful and scolding parent, but rather to provide a floor so that people don't fall in to miserable situations. Furthermore, the idea that one's actions in private, concerning only their own body, should make them a social outcast is laughably puritanical. Inclusion in society is about how one engages in the public sphere.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  Although I agree with what you're saying, the philosophy isn't so clear cut; even some strands of libertarian thought recognize harms against oneself, but the "oneself" is in the future, and could be considered a separate person. By an extension of the harm principle, it could be permissible to illegalize things which cause harm against people in future - the sale of cigarettes, for example.