Poll: Victimless crime.

[HotFezz8]

I'm reading a blog by a BBC reporter discussing crime and how the police handle it (or not)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/06/police_told_to_break_promises.html

now what we think of the police is secondary to this debate, alhtough im happy to hear your opinions (mine being: the police are fucking useless bullies in uniforms who only leave their desks to beat up drunks).

at the end of the report the first comment by someone is: you could save time by not arresting those who commit victimless crime.

my question is simple; is there any such thing? surely to be a crime it must hurt someone..?

 

[DazZ.]

Of course there are victimless crimes.

Underage drinking by 1 day for example, and most other drug related laws.

 

[capin Rob]

Loitering

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Depends on your definition of victim really.

If you take the attitude that (I'm going with the one other people have used) an underaged drinker by one day is not hurting himself or others, and while technically it is a crime for him to be having the beverage, he is only one arbitrary measure of time away from being legally allowed to do so, yes, that crime is victimless.

But a lot of things we term as victimless crimes (embezzling from banks seems to be the big one people try to claim) actually can have knock-on effects which actually have a far greater impact than if you, say, got money by mugging someone, in which only one person is the victim.

Or of course you could take the view that all criminals are victims of society, and when the society is hurt everyone in it is hurt, thus every person regardless of status is a victim of any crime committed anywhere, but that's getting a little too philosophical, and the Republicans and Conservatives on the site won't agree with me anyway.

[sub]commencing flame war over a satirical final comment in 3...[/sub]

EDIT: Oh, and another thing. I think the police force are one of the most underappreciated civil service jobs, at least in Britain. An unforgiving media that are so far from perfect they share an office with Satan latch onto them for not being able to clairvoyantly predict how a crime will be committed, a public made ignorant by police procedurals which have no reflection on reality condemn them for not doing their job 'properly.'

And above all, every time someone legitimately breaks the law we still get their opinion on it, so a woman who raped a man while violently drunk, killed a dog and hit an old woman in a car still gets her say on how it was all a stitch up and the police are always on her back. Thus is born true ignorance when some people actually believe the drunken rapist, dog murdering, fuck.

 

[Marter]

I don't really think that J-walking has a victim, unless you are stupid about it, in that case there would be a victim.

 

[Junkle]

I wouldn't be surprised if someone decided to classify piracy as this. Otherwise, an interesting article.

 

[Swarley]

I was going to say no, but

Loitering

I don't really see any victim in loitering, so I had to go with yes.

EDIT: Oh, and another thing. I think the police force are one of the most underappreciated civil service jobs, at least in Britain. An unforgiving media that are so far from perfect they share an office with Satan latch onto them for not being able to clairvoyantly predict how a crime will be committed, a public made ignorant by police procedurals which have no reflection on reality condemn them for not doing their job 'properly.'

And above all, every time someone legitimately breaks the law we still get their opinion on it, so a woman who raped a man while violently drunk, killed a dog and hit an old woman in a car still gets her say on how it was all a stitch up and the police are always on her back. Thus is born true ignorance when some people actually believe the drunken rapist, dog murdering, fuck.

I'm glad someone else posted something like this, I didn't want to bother defending cops, since normally the people attacking them are completely ignorant about how the majority are excellent hard working people. The problem is that every time something happens the media tries to spin it in a way to paint all cops as bad people, when in reality it's only a very small minority that cause problems. A good example is the press conference with the Toronto Chief of Police the night of the g20 riots. Several reporters tried to ask questions that were spun to make the police look bad, rather than the violent protesters.

 

[ShadowKatt]

Hmm, I voted too quickly. I was going to say that there is no such thing as a victimless crime, because if there is no victim, then it's not a crime. But I suppose breaking the law, even a misdemeanor, is still a crime.

 

[Mr. Grey]

I said no because our taxpayer dollars are wasted when you commit a crime. Especially one such as the below.

Loitering

No, you're sucking up my air when you're doing that. That's my air! I'll kill you!

 

[Ekibiogami]

Depends on your definition of victim really.

This. As it stands, "Victimless Crimes" are a little to Vaguely Defined.

 

[Counterwise]

Reasonable answer: Ninja'd jaywalking is in most cases victimless.
Unreasonable answer: Vehicular Manslaughter. Huh Huh, durrrrr.

 

[Brotherofwill]

Loitering

The earth's the victim. She's crying.

"This is the case Earth vs. Teenager who doesn't give a fuck"

"Open and shut case Johnson, Teenager wins"

Edit: Oh haha, I thought you said littering. My bad, altough it still may apply.

 

[the Dept of Science]

Some things are victimless in theory, but doing them increases the chances of someone being a victim.

For example, speeding is a victimless crime, however, if you speed you are more likely to have an accident, which will have a victim.

Loitering

Technically victimless, however, I think there is only a chance of being arrested if they suspect you may be up to something fishy. Its not loitering if you can give a reasonable explanation as to why you are standing where you are (eg. waiting for someone).
Also I guess if its a large group of youths, the old ladies might get scared.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

my question is simple; is there any such thing? surely to be a crime it must hurt someone..?

Nope.

Think of internet piracy for instance. Doesn't hurt anyone, yet still some insist that it is acrime comparable to theft.

Completely ridiculous of course since nothing is actually stolen, but they still say it is...

 

[Davey Woo]

Setting fire to something in a forest could be victimless I suppose.
I think what they mean by that is to focus only on arresting people who commit robbery, murder, rape or similar.

 

[Pielikey]

Every crime has a victim. Even piracy, the victim is the game company because you're not spending 50 bucks for their game. Or even if you're killing yourself, your family are victimized.

Loitering probably has a victim somewhere, but I'm not sure where it is.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

I don't really think that J-walking has a victim, unless you are stupid about it, in that case there would be a victim.

Agreed.

 

[Amalith]

Loitering

The earth's the victim. She's crying.

"This is the case Earth vs. Teenager who doesn't give a fuck"

"Open and shut case Johnson, Teenager wins"

You're going to be standing around no matter where you do it, so no the Earth doesn't cry over loitering. You are referring to littering.

Loitering is actually a problem with businesses though. You aren't going to enter the building with the creepy homeless guy at the door, so the business loses money. Thus Loitering laws. Though really the proprietors should enforce them, not the police. But then we have vigilantism, which could cause people harm, or we have ineffective pleas for the person to leave, which are useless, thus the police.

Some things are victimless in theory, but doing them increases the chances of someone being a victim.

For example, speeding is a victimless crime, however, if you speed you are more likely to have an accident, which will have a victim.

As with J-walking.

 

[KaiRai]

Speeding. It doesn't harm anyone.

It's easy to kill someone by going too fast. But of course then the charge is vehicular manslaughter, and not speeding.

Also, parking. That's one 'law' I've never understood.