h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

That would be a victimless crime!

az

there.
are.
no.
(victimless?)
crimes.

Well Mal, although I dont think I can agree with you I think I see where you are coming from.

Drug use or speeding are often cited as victimless crimes by people who dont give enough thought to the victims they dont see or people who are inevitabley harmed but are not immediatley apparent.

However I still think you are wrong. In some countries very mundane religious practices are outlawed. Whoo woule really be the victim if I went to receive the sacraments in one of these countries. If in the privacy of my home I committed acts with a willing adult that left no injuries and no one else saw or heard who would be the victim then.

We can have victims without there being a law broken and we certainly can have laws broken without there being an actual victim or any harm to society in general. Contravention of the law and harm are not inextricably linked.

Some forms of injury are not covered by the law eg. a parent hitting their own child, while on the other hand some laws are so restrictive that they exaggerate or invent harm where there is little or none.

one love

The existance of victimless crimes are inevitable. It is rare that the spirit of a law can be accurately translate into a watertight wording so we end with with things that are crimes, but have no victim and no consequence.

Heres one from America. Section 7-5-309 (B) No voter shall be allowed more than five (5) minutes to mark his ballot.
No victim, but it's a crime. If you think about it you can see the need for such a law, but the reason has not accurately been translated into words.

The best anyone can do is consider what they think is right and what is legal and do anything in the crossover group. Unless it's important, then you can ignore whats legal.

Well if you were the last person behind two others and it was eleven minutes to the close of polling I think you would want the two people infront of you to observe the law, Acid.

You would be the victim if their slothenlyness prevented you from casting your vote wouldnt you?

As I can said, I can see why it's there and that the intention is to stop things like that. (Also to stop someone hiring an army of staff to occupy the pooling areas in which they are likely to lose :P) However the point is that it's still a crime if you do it at 2 in the morning with no-one else there. The crime does not match the intention perfectly, I did not say that there was no crossover.

"Surely something becomes illegal (a crime) *because* it has a negative effect on people. And so if *any* person suffers harm from a crime (which would be the basis of making something illegal in the first place) then it cannot be considered victimless. So I think the term 'victimless crime' is an oxymoron."

Nonsense - in many countries certain things are not deemed criminal because they create victims but because they are considered "morally corrupting". Single-party states (such as Cuba) and theocratic rightwing governments (such as Iran) are notorious for this, because (unlike a democracy) the state considers itself the guardian of certain inflexible and absolute values that must be upheld via law.

We *do*, of course, still have some of these laws in democracies. We had anti-homosexual legislation until fairly recently and we still have drug laws that are arguably more about "protecting morals" than saving people from addiction.

blicky
Of course, I don't really think there's any crime at all. But political views aside...
Any "victimless" crime will always have an effect, because it has an effect on the law as a whole. If you broke the law by performing a forbidden act, it would indicate a disregard for the law. Since the power of the law lies in the mind of the citizenry - just as the power of a policeman lies in their minds (that, and hir dinky badge) - and so a disregard would in a very tiny way bring society to the brink of collapse.

Mal
(not very effectively playing devil's advocate)

Speeding, under certain circumstances, most definitely IS a victimless crime. Crashing while speeding would be a crime.

But consider: the speed limit on the motorway is 70mph. This limit was set in the 1960s, when everything was in black and white and car brakes were made of sponge, tires were two inches wide and steering wheels were made of Bakelite.

To suggest that 70mph - a "safe" maximum speed for a Hillman Imp - is exactly the same safe maximum speed for a modern car with modern brakes, ABS, better tires, etc. is just nonsense. Such a vehicle could safely stop in MUCH less space than the cars that were in use when the limit was set, even if they were travelling faster. And in the event of a crash, systems such as safety cages, inertial reel seatbelts, side impact bars etc. make injury much less likely.

All of which comes round to the idea that if I drive my new car down the left lane of the dry M6 in clear bright sunshine at 85mph, who is the victim?

As for cannabis use - what if you grow your own supply? If you grow a plant in your own home for your own use, who is being victimised? (Answer: I am, because my taxes are paying for a policeman to waste his time trying to catch you. But that's the government's fault, not yours.)

H.

There's more to this issue than meets the eye. Speeding may appear to be a victimless crime but if speeding really is a major cause of accidents then - statistically - speeding creates victims and so speeding is not a victimless crime. (Throwing a fag end out of the car window looks like a victimless crime until one is ingested by the air filter on a truck shortly to enter the Mont Blanc tunnel.) Also, fifty years from now society may consider it to have been criminal to allow anyone to travel at such fuel inefficient speeds at any time. The speed limit for major roads was originally also set at 70mph but was reduced in the seventies as a fuel saving measure and has never been reinstated.

Driving in black and white is certainly going to reduce the value of a lot of visual cues for the driver (traffic signs, red lights etc.) so I expect it was more dangerous then. But what's with the US spelling of 'tyres'?

F