3 ms·

I'd say the better solution is to reduce the number of crimes there are - perhaps legalize drugs. If there is a victim, it's not a crime.

austincheney 6y ago
The idea of elimination of victimless crimes is problematic. That doesn’t account for second and third order consequences such as trafficking in persons or stolen goods. It also eliminates most traffic crimes which is very bad for personal safety. Ultimately, yes, the number of criminals would decrease dramatically if people are no longer prosecuted for crimes but does not mean crimes would decrease.
- woodruffw 6y ago
  > That doesn’t account for second and third order consequences such as trafficking in persons or stolen goods. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean, but wouldn’t the trafficked person and person stolen from be the victims in those scenarios? I don’t believe “victimless crime” typically refers to things like trafficking and theft — I’ve heard it more commonly used to refer to so-called “social ills” like petty drug dealing, public intoxication, and graffiti.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    Trafficking in illicit goods and persons are more acts of criminal facilitation, than end goals, fueled by criminal enterprises, such as prostitution and resell of illicit goods that appear victimless. Petty crimes and public intoxication contribute to the broken windows social theory.
  - jtsiskin 6y ago
    I think they are referring to prostitution (another “victimless crime”), and how it often leads to human trafficking
- jillesvangurp 6y ago
  Actually, other countries show that recidivism decreases when you lock less people up. E.g. the Netherlands where I come from used to have a shortage of jail cells. These days it has a surplus and not because we built more jails. It's a direct result of a few decades of policy aimed at reducing the cost of locking people up by punishing smartly, more selectively, and investing in prevention. This hasn't resulted in a wave of crime. Though if you read the popular press you might conclude otherwise. The US has a crime policy problem. It locks up more people than any country in the world (including some very nasty regimes) and it's not making it a safer place. People enter the system when they are teenagers and from there it's basically a life of crime that is hard to escape. It's actually a very cynical system if you look at the financials, lobbying, and politics around this. Some jail operators are private companies valued at billions of dollars on Wall Street. Lots of manufacturers rely on inmates producing stuff for them for next to nothing. It's essentially a modern form of slavery. There is a lot of lobbying around increasing spending on locking people up while still rolling off a lot of the cost on tax payers. The same lobbies are also putting pressure on the legal system to be "more efficient" which boils down to eroding people's rights to due process and fair treatment. A lot of the positions in the legal system are actually political positions so you get a lot of successful politicians that bootstrap their careers basically being lobbied to be tough on crime as a prosecutor, judge, etc. It's also a racial problem in some states that have a majority black and latino population. Excluding people with criminal records from being able to vote is basically perpetuating an apartheid system where the demographics of the state are not reflected in its elected bodies. When those same states have predominantly right leaning "tough on crime" type politicians, it's easy to see the incentives politicians have looking the other way rather than addressing the core problems.

austincheney 6y ago

The idea of elimination of victimless crimes is problematic. That doesn’t account for second and third order consequences such as trafficking in persons or stolen goods. It also eliminates most traffic crimes which is very bad for personal safety. Ultimately, yes, the number of criminals would decrease dramatically if people are no longer prosecuted for crimes but does not mean crimes would decrease.

woodruffw 6y ago
> That doesn’t account for second and third order consequences such as trafficking in persons or stolen goods. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean, but wouldn’t the trafficked person and person stolen from be the victims in those scenarios? I don’t believe “victimless crime” typically refers to things like trafficking and theft — I’ve heard it more commonly used to refer to so-called “social ills” like petty drug dealing, public intoxication, and graffiti.
- austincheney 6y ago
  Trafficking in illicit goods and persons are more acts of criminal facilitation, than end goals, fueled by criminal enterprises, such as prostitution and resell of illicit goods that appear victimless. Petty crimes and public intoxication contribute to the broken windows social theory.
- jtsiskin 6y ago
  I think they are referring to prostitution (another “victimless crime”), and how it often leads to human trafficking
jillesvangurp 6y ago
Actually, other countries show that recidivism decreases when you lock less people up. E.g. the Netherlands where I come from used to have a shortage of jail cells. These days it has a surplus and not because we built more jails. It's a direct result of a few decades of policy aimed at reducing the cost of locking people up by punishing smartly, more selectively, and investing in prevention. This hasn't resulted in a wave of crime. Though if you read the popular press you might conclude otherwise. The US has a crime policy problem. It locks up more people than any country in the world (including some very nasty regimes) and it's not making it a safer place. People enter the system when they are teenagers and from there it's basically a life of crime that is hard to escape. It's actually a very cynical system if you look at the financials, lobbying, and politics around this. Some jail operators are private companies valued at billions of dollars on Wall Street. Lots of manufacturers rely on inmates producing stuff for them for next to nothing. It's essentially a modern form of slavery. There is a lot of lobbying around increasing spending on locking people up while still rolling off a lot of the cost on tax payers. The same lobbies are also putting pressure on the legal system to be "more efficient" which boils down to eroding people's rights to due process and fair treatment. A lot of the positions in the legal system are actually political positions so you get a lot of successful politicians that bootstrap their careers basically being lobbied to be tough on crime as a prosecutor, judge, etc. It's also a racial problem in some states that have a majority black and latino population. Excluding people with criminal records from being able to vote is basically perpetuating an apartheid system where the demographics of the state are not reflected in its elected bodies. When those same states have predominantly right leaning "tough on crime" type politicians, it's easy to see the incentives politicians have looking the other way rather than addressing the core problems.