4 ms·

America has a prison industrial complex and corrupt justice system problem. There wouldn't be black markets for drugs if we stopped jailing people for victimles

America has a prison industrial complex and corrupt justice system problem. There wouldn't be black markets for drugs if we stopped jailing people for victimless crimes to begin with. No victimless crime should result in criminal charges. Going to jail should never be a possibility when there's no victim.

humanrebar 13y ago
1. Can everyone come to an agreement about what counts as a victim? 2. Maybe no victimless crime should result in jail time, but there are a lot of penalties for "victimless" crimes (tax evasion, illegal production of controlled substances) that justly result in fines. EDIT: OK. I typed too quickly with the child support bit. In retrospect, that was a bad example. I also added scare quotes to emphasize that justice can be served in criminal court even if nobody goes to jail.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  There is a victim when child support is not provided: the child(ren).
- gnaritas 13y ago
  I said should never result in jail or criminal charges; civil courts should handle such issues. However, not paying support has a clear victim, the mother and child that have to do without what they legally have a right to. Ditto for tax evasion, you're robbing your fellow citizens.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Tax evasion and failure to provide child support are perfect examples of crimes with real victims. The perpetrator is victimizing society, and their own child in these cases. Do you have some better examples you would like to use?
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    I was unclear, but I didn't necessarily agree with those examples, so I added scare quotes. My point was that there should be some crimes that result in fines but not jail time. Better examples? Practicing medicine without a license (assuming good medicine otherwise). Trespassing (assuming no other damages). Criminal endangerment (assuming no actual harms). Production of controlled substances. Ownership (not use) of unlicensed firearms. Again, I don't necessarily agree that those are all victimless. The point is that they are arguably benign crimes that shouldn't necessarily require jail time.
- delucain 13y ago
  Tax evasion hurts society as a whole by reducing available resources for the programs that aid our country, and failure to provide child support harm the children and mothers that the child support was intended for in much the same way. Neither of these are victimless crimes. Victimless crimes are typically things that only harm the person/people involved in the crime, i.e. prostitution, recreational drug use, or gambling.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > Tax evasion hurts society as a whole by reducing available resources for the programs that aid our country That argument only works if taxation provides a net benefit to society.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      Tax evasion hurts society as a whole because you're free loading off the system and stealing from your fellow citizens who are paying their taxes. This argument is valid regardless of whether taxes benefit society or not.
      - abcabc321321123 13y ago
        >stealing from your fellow citizens who are paying their taxes. You are confusing who is stealing from whom.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        No I'm really not; taxes are perfectly constitutional. Call it theft if you like but you're just being ridiculous.
        baddox 13y ago
        Theft existed before the constitution, and the constitution didn't change what it means.
drawkbox 13y ago
Victimless is hard to define. By victimless I think you mean non-violent really. Even if there is a victim, if there was no violence, putting the perpetrator into a jail/prison will create more violence. Also repeat offenses of non-violent crimes might be needed but most can be solved economically. For instance take someone who does some financial crime, why lock them up and have the public on the hook for 30k per year or more when they could be making money back they stole and mark them for some period of time similar to jail time. Why cost the public 30k+ per inmate at all if it isn't a violent crime? What a waste.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  No, I meant what I said. Victimeless, and no it's not at all hard to define. Drugs, sex, gambling, bigamy, etc; basically laws based on Christian morality that try and tell you it's wrong to do things that only involve consenting adults. Non-violent is another category, but I agree with you on that category, prison should be for the violent.
  - benched 13y ago
    In Internet argument fashion, a bunch of people will just jump all over you, and take your words through every useless permutation of meaning they can think of, for which they can contrive a shallowly plausible counterargument. I grow more and more convinced that very few people read to comprehend.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      > I grow more and more convinced that very few people read to comprehend. As do I. I find myself continually defending things I didn't say because people are more concerned with arguing with what they think I meant rather than reading what I actually said.
    - drawkbox 13y ago
      I understood what he said. But nice fallacious empty message here. Tell me how you define victimless? How do you define violent? Which one is easier to define in court? Or would you rather just invade discussions with fallacies and attacking the messenger? Also didn't you just jump all over my message?
arg01 13y ago
I'd assume you do agree that excessive speeding constitutes a crime as a it raises the chances of inflicting injury on others. If there was a statistical link between a drug and increasing the chance of the user committing violence would you still consider drugs victimless? I raise the point as someone who is quite happy to support marijuana and alcohol use, but believe the definition of victimless is not an easy one.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  Raising the chances of is not at all the same as happened. Excessive speeding can be a civil violation punishable by fines, not jail. Civil infraction != crime. > If there was a statistical link between a drug and increasing the chance of the user committing violence would you still consider drugs victimless Yes I would. Consuming drugs never creates a victim, that is an indisputable fact, you cannot victimize yourself. If you commit violence against another person, that's already illegal and already punishable and is a crime regardless of why you did it. Drug use is not drug abuse and we don't need pre-crime in our world. Punish people who actually do the bad things, not those who might do something bad, otherwise we should start locking up all poor people because they might statistically commit more crimes than the rich. This is a dangerous line of thinking.
  - ianferrel 13y ago
    Is there any action that is potentially dangerous enough that an instance of it in which no one happened to be harmed should be a criminal offense? Say I walk down the street firing a gun randomly, but I don't strike anyone with a bullet. Civil remedies only?
    - drblast 13y ago
      I think we have laws that cover those cases. Attempted murder not being the same as actual murder even though the only difference might be bad aim and all that. If by firing randomly you were assured nobody else would be hurt, would anyone still care? The real problem with firing randomly is that you can't ensure nobody will get hurt. Taking drugs is two steps removed from that. The idea being that by taking drugs, you are more likely to walk down the street firing a gun randomly, therefore a criminal. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

humanrebar 13y ago

1. Can everyone come to an agreement about what counts as a victim? 2. Maybe no victimless crime should result in jail time, but there are a lot of penalties for "victimless" crimes (tax evasion, illegal production of controlled substances) that justly result in fines. EDIT: OK. I typed too quickly with the child support bit. In retrospect, that was a bad example. I also added scare quotes to emphasize that justice can be served in criminal court even if nobody goes to jail.

chris_mahan 13y ago
There is a victim when child support is not provided: the child(ren).
gnaritas 13y ago
I said should never result in jail or criminal charges; civil courts should handle such issues. However, not paying support has a clear victim, the mother and child that have to do without what they legally have a right to. Ditto for tax evasion, you're robbing your fellow citizens.
wavefunction 13y ago
Tax evasion and failure to provide child support are perfect examples of crimes with real victims. The perpetrator is victimizing society, and their own child in these cases. Do you have some better examples you would like to use?
- humanrebar 13y ago
  I was unclear, but I didn't necessarily agree with those examples, so I added scare quotes. My point was that there should be some crimes that result in fines but not jail time. Better examples? Practicing medicine without a license (assuming good medicine otherwise). Trespassing (assuming no other damages). Criminal endangerment (assuming no actual harms). Production of controlled substances. Ownership (not use) of unlicensed firearms. Again, I don't necessarily agree that those are all victimless. The point is that they are arguably benign crimes that shouldn't necessarily require jail time.
delucain 13y ago
Tax evasion hurts society as a whole by reducing available resources for the programs that aid our country, and failure to provide child support harm the children and mothers that the child support was intended for in much the same way. Neither of these are victimless crimes. Victimless crimes are typically things that only harm the person/people involved in the crime, i.e. prostitution, recreational drug use, or gambling.
- baddox 13y ago
  > Tax evasion hurts society as a whole by reducing available resources for the programs that aid our country That argument only works if taxation provides a net benefit to society.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    Tax evasion hurts society as a whole because you're free loading off the system and stealing from your fellow citizens who are paying their taxes. This argument is valid regardless of whether taxes benefit society or not.
    - abcabc321321123 13y ago
      >stealing from your fellow citizens who are paying their taxes. You are confusing who is stealing from whom.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        No I'm really not; taxes are perfectly constitutional. Call it theft if you like but you're just being ridiculous.
        baddox 13y ago
        Theft existed before the constitution, and the constitution didn't change what it means.

drawkbox 13y ago

Victimless is hard to define. By victimless I think you mean non-violent really. Even if there is a victim, if there was no violence, putting the perpetrator into a jail/prison will create more violence. Also repeat offenses of non-violent crimes might be needed but most can be solved economically. For instance take someone who does some financial crime, why lock them up and have the public on the hook for 30k per year or more when they could be making money back they stole and mark them for some period of time similar to jail time. Why cost the public 30k+ per inmate at all if it isn't a violent crime? What a waste.

gnaritas 13y ago
No, I meant what I said. Victimeless, and no it's not at all hard to define. Drugs, sex, gambling, bigamy, etc; basically laws based on Christian morality that try and tell you it's wrong to do things that only involve consenting adults. Non-violent is another category, but I agree with you on that category, prison should be for the violent.
- benched 13y ago
  In Internet argument fashion, a bunch of people will just jump all over you, and take your words through every useless permutation of meaning they can think of, for which they can contrive a shallowly plausible counterargument. I grow more and more convinced that very few people read to comprehend.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > I grow more and more convinced that very few people read to comprehend. As do I. I find myself continually defending things I didn't say because people are more concerned with arguing with what they think I meant rather than reading what I actually said.
  - drawkbox 13y ago
    I understood what he said. But nice fallacious empty message here. Tell me how you define victimless? How do you define violent? Which one is easier to define in court? Or would you rather just invade discussions with fallacies and attacking the messenger? Also didn't you just jump all over my message?

arg01 13y ago

I'd assume you do agree that excessive speeding constitutes a crime as a it raises the chances of inflicting injury on others. If there was a statistical link between a drug and increasing the chance of the user committing violence would you still consider drugs victimless? I raise the point as someone who is quite happy to support marijuana and alcohol use, but believe the definition of victimless is not an easy one.

gnaritas 13y ago
Raising the chances of is not at all the same as happened. Excessive speeding can be a civil violation punishable by fines, not jail. Civil infraction != crime. > If there was a statistical link between a drug and increasing the chance of the user committing violence would you still consider drugs victimless Yes I would. Consuming drugs never creates a victim, that is an indisputable fact, you cannot victimize yourself. If you commit violence against another person, that's already illegal and already punishable and is a crime regardless of why you did it. Drug use is not drug abuse and we don't need pre-crime in our world. Punish people who actually do the bad things, not those who might do something bad, otherwise we should start locking up all poor people because they might statistically commit more crimes than the rich. This is a dangerous line of thinking.
- ianferrel 13y ago
  Is there any action that is potentially dangerous enough that an instance of it in which no one happened to be harmed should be a criminal offense? Say I walk down the street firing a gun randomly, but I don't strike anyone with a bullet. Civil remedies only?
  - drblast 13y ago
    I think we have laws that cover those cases. Attempted murder not being the same as actual murder even though the only difference might be bad aim and all that. If by firing randomly you were assured nobody else would be hurt, would anyone still care? The real problem with firing randomly is that you can't ensure nobody will get hurt. Taking drugs is two steps removed from that. The idea being that by taking drugs, you are more likely to walk down the street firing a gun randomly, therefore a criminal. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.