2 ms·

You aren't getting it. Who does the bare risk itself victimize? Where is the damage? The risk is just that, a risk. There's a chance it may go bad and a cha

You aren't getting it. Who does the bare risk itself victimize? Where is the damage? The risk is just that, a risk. There's a chance it may go bad and a chance that it may not. The risk produces no damage, no victim. But in sufficient quantity the bad outcome will happen enough to be worth making the activity is not allowed. Normally we prohibit the bad outcome but for some highly subjective cases we have to just draw a somewhat arbitrary line.

kube-system 5y ago
Risk victimizes those who are exposed to it. When it is trivial to identify a single person who is exposed to the risk, we don't call it "victimless", we call it "endangerment". Why, when an act exposes multiple unnamed people to a risk, do some call it a "victimless" crime? Just because it's difficult to identify those exposed to a risk doesn't mean that people haven't been placed at risk.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >Risk victimizes those who are exposed to it. If you share the road with a drunk driver but they crash into someone else are you a victim? Does their insurer compensate you? Being exposed to risk does not make you a victim. You need to actually be harmed. If your brother takes opiods but stops you are not a victim. If your bother takes opiods, gets addicted and ruins your family then you are. Shooting a gun in the air, speeding, all sorts of unsafe things can have no victim, or they can have a victim depending on how things go. We don't criminalize these things because they have victims when you do them right. They are usually victimless. We criminalize them because there's too much luck involved and we don't like the odds.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    > Being exposed to risk does not make you a victim. You need to actually be harmed. Crimes of endangerment are an exact counterpoint to this. They often do have identifiable victims, in a way that most people would agree.

kube-system 5y ago

Risk victimizes those who are exposed to it. When it is trivial to identify a single person who is exposed to the risk, we don't call it "victimless", we call it "endangerment". Why, when an act exposes multiple unnamed people to a risk, do some call it a "victimless" crime? Just because it's difficult to identify those exposed to a risk doesn't mean that people haven't been placed at risk.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>Risk victimizes those who are exposed to it. If you share the road with a drunk driver but they crash into someone else are you a victim? Does their insurer compensate you? Being exposed to risk does not make you a victim. You need to actually be harmed. If your brother takes opiods but stops you are not a victim. If your bother takes opiods, gets addicted and ruins your family then you are. Shooting a gun in the air, speeding, all sorts of unsafe things can have no victim, or they can have a victim depending on how things go. We don't criminalize these things because they have victims when you do them right. They are usually victimless. We criminalize them because there's too much luck involved and we don't like the odds.
- kube-system 5y ago
  > Being exposed to risk does not make you a victim. You need to actually be harmed. Crimes of endangerment are an exact counterpoint to this. They often do have identifiable victims, in a way that most people would agree.