4 ms·

I spent my teenage years in a third-world country. I would be convicted of the following if I had spent those years in the US: 1) Trespassing private property

by copperx 12y ago

I spent my teenage years in a third-world country. I would be convicted of the following if I had spent those years in the US: 1) Trespassing private property 2) Theft 3) Willful and malicious destruction of property 4) Arson 5) Indecent exposure 6) Consensual rape (my girlfriend was 2 years younger than me) 7) Driving under the influence I consider myself a highly moral individual, and some people consider me the most level-headed and patient person around. I would argue that being a vandal in your teenage years may have a positive impact on the rest of the life of some people. You have to be smart about it and try not to hurt you or anyone else too much in the process.

cookiecaper 12y ago
To be fair, you probably wouldn't have been caught for most of that stuff unless you were doing it during school hours, on school grounds. The knee-jerk massive overreaction stuff is mostly perpetrated by school administrations, whose primary concern is preventing a lawsuit, not contributing to the child's development.
- bowlofpetunias 12y ago
  Take into account that "during school hours" and "on school grounds" is a much bigger chunk of kids' lives in the US than it is in most other countries. In most countries, school is just the place where you have lessons for a few hours, and all other activities, including even lunch breaks, are part of kids' private lives outside of school and outside of school grounds. Add to that no school buses and no parents driving their kids to and from school in SUV's, and you get a culture in which kids have a considerably chunk of private life outside of either parental or school control. The problem imho is giving school administrations so much influence and authority over kids in the first place.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    >Take into account that "during school hours" and "on school grounds" is a much bigger chunk of kids' lives in the US than it is in most other countries. Citation needed, my experience has been the opposite (except for Germany). I was getting out of school at 2:45 in the US, 6 in France. I know there are extracurricular activities, but still.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rtpg 12y ago
> You have to be smart about it and try not to hurt you or anyone else too much in the process. So theft, destruction of property, driving under the influence, and arson are victimless crimes? Maybe I'm a stickler for rule of law but when you start fucking with other people's stuff, that's not cool (understatement). Especially if it's just because you're bored.
- x1798DE 12y ago
  Although I'm sympathetic to your general view, driving under the influence is in fact a victimless crime. If the crime were "causing damage or injury as a result of driving under the influence", then it would have a victim, but getting drunk then driving somewhere and not hurting anyone is still a crime, but has no victim. You could say you're increasing the risk for everyone else, but the same can be said for use of PCP or meth or some drug that correlates with higher rates of violent crimes, and those are acknowledged to be victimless crimes.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Its a sliding scale. What's the chance of this 'victimless crime' turning into a real one? And that ranges from property damage to manslaughter to killing whole families. There's a risk/reward analysis at work here, an driving under the influence has had a very, very bad track record.
    - x1798DE 12y ago
      Well it just is a victimless crime is all. Clearly the author of the parent post didn't hurt anyone, so it had no victim. It's probably not worth it to get into it, but I think I'd prefer a situation where you don't get punished for "pre-crime" like driving under the influence, but you get punished extra harshly for anything that causes damage as a result of something like that. So crash into a pole when sober, pay a fine. Crash into a pole when drunk, fine plus 3 months in jail. That sort of thing. Similarly you can imagine a lot of the outrage about jaywalking would go away if jaywalking were legal everywhere, but causing an accident or traffic jam while jaywalking would carry a hefty fine. This allows people to make local risk assessment decisions for which they are taking responsibility (it's 2 AM and there are no cars around - is it worth it to cross now knowing that if I do end up causing an accident or traffic jam it'll cost me $500?). Not saying it's a perfect system, but it seems like a start in addressing the legitimate concerns people have about victimless crimes.
anodari 12y ago
Nothing unusual for kids: jumping a fence to steal a fruit or play with fireworks. It is quite unlike anything illegal done for profit.

by copperx 12y ago

cookiecaper 12y ago

To be fair, you probably wouldn't have been caught for most of that stuff unless you were doing it during school hours, on school grounds. The knee-jerk massive overreaction stuff is mostly perpetrated by school administrations, whose primary concern is preventing a lawsuit, not contributing to the child's development.

bowlofpetunias 12y ago
Take into account that "during school hours" and "on school grounds" is a much bigger chunk of kids' lives in the US than it is in most other countries. In most countries, school is just the place where you have lessons for a few hours, and all other activities, including even lunch breaks, are part of kids' private lives outside of school and outside of school grounds. Add to that no school buses and no parents driving their kids to and from school in SUV's, and you get a culture in which kids have a considerably chunk of private life outside of either parental or school control. The problem imho is giving school administrations so much influence and authority over kids in the first place.
- rtpg 12y ago
  >Take into account that "during school hours" and "on school grounds" is a much bigger chunk of kids' lives in the US than it is in most other countries. Citation needed, my experience has been the opposite (except for Germany). I was getting out of school at 2:45 in the US, 6 in France. I know there are extracurricular activities, but still.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rtpg 12y ago

> You have to be smart about it and try not to hurt you or anyone else too much in the process. So theft, destruction of property, driving under the influence, and arson are victimless crimes? Maybe I'm a stickler for rule of law but when you start fucking with other people's stuff, that's not cool (understatement). Especially if it's just because you're bored.

x1798DE 12y ago
Although I'm sympathetic to your general view, driving under the influence is in fact a victimless crime. If the crime were "causing damage or injury as a result of driving under the influence", then it would have a victim, but getting drunk then driving somewhere and not hurting anyone is still a crime, but has no victim. You could say you're increasing the risk for everyone else, but the same can be said for use of PCP or meth or some drug that correlates with higher rates of violent crimes, and those are acknowledged to be victimless crimes.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Its a sliding scale. What's the chance of this 'victimless crime' turning into a real one? And that ranges from property damage to manslaughter to killing whole families. There's a risk/reward analysis at work here, an driving under the influence has had a very, very bad track record.
  - x1798DE 12y ago
    Well it just is a victimless crime is all. Clearly the author of the parent post didn't hurt anyone, so it had no victim. It's probably not worth it to get into it, but I think I'd prefer a situation where you don't get punished for "pre-crime" like driving under the influence, but you get punished extra harshly for anything that causes damage as a result of something like that. So crash into a pole when sober, pay a fine. Crash into a pole when drunk, fine plus 3 months in jail. That sort of thing. Similarly you can imagine a lot of the outrage about jaywalking would go away if jaywalking were legal everywhere, but causing an accident or traffic jam while jaywalking would carry a hefty fine. This allows people to make local risk assessment decisions for which they are taking responsibility (it's 2 AM and there are no cars around - is it worth it to cross now knowing that if I do end up causing an accident or traffic jam it'll cost me $500?). Not saying it's a perfect system, but it seems like a start in addressing the legitimate concerns people have about victimless crimes.

anodari 12y ago

Nothing unusual for kids: jumping a fence to steal a fruit or play with fireworks. It is quite unlike anything illegal done for profit.