Poll: Victimless crime.

[iLikeHippos]

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...

Imagine making a VERY beautiful portrait of someone that inspired you greatly.

Now, this portrait, it took you quite the time to make and so on, so you decide it's the best to put it up on a museum for everyone to see it. Since it's your pride and joy. Plus you can sell it to someone who likes it so you can have money for your hard work.

But than when people come in the museum, they just take a photo of your picture and walks on. Surely it's not stealing, but no one really found the need of buying your painting which could had given you back money for the time and materials used in the progress of the painting.

So, they're basically copying your painting, most probably without your permission which they could sell onward or just hand out free. They didn't even find the need to even chat with you, as they had the liberty to just walk on and ignore you; the creator.

I'd guess that, if not stealing, is an infringement to copyright laws. The victim is probably you if you wanted money for the painting.

They also "stole" you a chance from getting the money in the first place with a good probability.
Ultimately, the victim is the creator.

I can't really see a difference in the 1's and 0's.

 

[Swarley]

It's these jerks that make the majority of the hard-working, honest and trust-worthy cops a bad name, and it saddens me that this kind of behaviour is still tolerated in North America...

You mean like that part in my post where I said that a small minority is the one causing problems?

 

[Dogstile]

Loitering

[sarcasm]
nice troll-post.
[/sarcasm]
okay, ill start spending all my free time in front of your house with 20 of my friends talking loudly, littering cigarette buds in your front yard and playing music.
Dont tell me you (and your neighbours) like that idea.

Its cool, i'll just ask you to do it down the street. No need to call the police on you. And yeah sure you can say no and be pricks about it, but so far i've not encountered it. Plus I like to think humans are generally nice to eachother.

 

[DazBurger]

And about my qualifications to be discussing here, who says that I have read any less than you?

That's fine, however I didn't mean me, if you actually read what I wrote I said people who have done research and papers on the subject. If I had written anything about it it would have been the first thing I linked.

I'm not saying people "don't know what they're talking about". It's fine to give opinions on a forum, you can't tell people they don't know what they're talking about when you don't actually have anything to back yourself up apart from a "first hand experience". This is the internet, everyone has first hand experience at everything.

The rest of what you talked about has nothing to do with anything I said...

It seems that you more about me than do! Im stunned! You must be psychic or perhaps mindcontrolling?

First you tell me how I would react and then you tell me that im accturally a lying SOB.

That I havent had a father doing drugs, a stepfather who turned out alcoholic and friends who turning strange after beginning to smoke weed.

But nah, im just lying ofc I am!

I dont think we have more to discuss, so good luck with your religion or whatever.

 

[DazZ.]

It seems that you more about me than do! Im stunned! You must be psychic or perhaps mindcontrolling?

First you tell me how I would react and then you tell me that im accturally a lying SOB.

That I havent had a father doing drugs, a stepfather who turned out alcoholic and friends who turning strange after beginning to smoke weed.

But nah, im just lying ofc I am!

I dont think we have more to discuss, so good luck with your religion or whatever.

What the hell are you on about? I never said I know anything about you at all and no where have I said anything about what you're like.

The only point I've made is that you can't tell people they don't know what they're talking about when you've had first hand experience that is in the minority and goes against what papers and research has said.

I don't give a shit about what problems you've had, you can't tell people they don't know what they're talking about if they don't believe the same as you, having drugtastic relatives doesn't mean you're the pinnacle of drug knowledge.

 

[bjj hero]

Smoking weed supports an illegal import industry tied up in smuggling.

So if I grow my own cannabis and smoke it and do not sell or spread it to anyone else or let anyone else know that im doing it, im "supporting" an illegal import industry tied up in smuggling?

Wow, I never knew most cannabis users got their drugs like. I thought the vast majority bought it from dealers (or from someone who bought it from a dealer), thus supporting organised crime and smuggling.

We find a victim.

Yes alcohol is damaging. If alcohol never existed until last week they would test it, find the effects horrible then ban it. In the UK we have a christian culture and alcohol is part of that. Its too late to ban it now, despite the harm.

 

[rokkolpo]

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

the victims are the makers.
they don't get the money they deserve, so in a way someone stole their money. (withheld their money)

 

[Jumping_Over_Fences]

Shoplifting is a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark.

"If I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I'd be at home with a pack of cigarettes and a short length of hose."

How could you?! Haven't you learned anything from that guy who gives those sermons at church? Captain What's-his-name? We live in a society of laws. Why do you think I took you to all those "Police Academy" movies? For fun? Well, I didn't hear anybody laughing! Did you?!

 

[WeedWorm]

Selling alcohol to a minor damages their health, academic chances and behaviour.

What if said minor does it once? Drinking once wont result in any damage to his health or school performance.

Smoking weed supports an illegal import industry tied up in smuggling.

Thats buying weed, and only if you buy it off someone who works for a gang. If I bought weed off a guy who grew it himself, and wasnt dealing for a gang, or if I grew my own, wheres the victim?

A theft from any shop costs them money and man hours to fix the problems with inventory figures.

How could anyone think stealing isint a victimless crime?

Public urination spreads disease, smells bad, is rude and not to mention you're pissing on someone's fucking house!

True but when ya gotta go, ya gotta go. Seriously though, pissing on street corner or on someones wall is just bad form but I dont think theres a problem if you go down a back alley or somewhere where people rarely go.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Drinking is impossible to stop so we have to work in the real world and accommodate drinking, whereas we can stop cannabis use.

:O <--*me finding out that my jaw has dropped yet once again at naive statement of epic proportions*


Seriously mate, can you HONESTLY SAY that these legal bans on cannabis have actually been the least bit effective in stopping cannabis usage? I mean really?

The flourishing drug trade going on in every major continent disproves such a claim. I mean really, you say that you've even used the drug yourself, doesn't that give you a first hand look at how ineffective these bans really are?

And also, I find it ironic that you actually try to bring up the prohibition era as an aspect giving support YOUR argument when it actually does the exact opposite.

If anything, the prohibition era showed us the dangerous consequences of what happens when a government arbitrarily tries to illegalize something that a vast group of any given nation's population still wish to have access to and to be able to use.

In fact, the damages made by the prohibition still show it's effects in the U.S today due to the fact that back then, organized crime syndicates had so much profit from selling booze illegaly that they managed to build criminal empires that are still active today and cause harm for the society in general. If the U.S hadn't enacted the prohibition, the population woulnd't have had to resort giving money to criminals in order to get their hands on the booze, and thus these criminals wouldn't have had access to such a ridiculously profitable source of income (and thus hampered their abilities to commit REAL crimes like murder, human slavery and the like).


THE EXACT SAME THING IS GOING ON TODAY BUT WITH DRUGS. Due to the fact that even if many types of drugs certainly aren't "healthy" to use, A LOT of people still wants to have the freedom to use them occasionally or regularly.

But the state in which they live have banned them and outlawed them, so the only way they can use drugs is by giving money to criminals. Criminals who commit far more nefarious crimes than simple drug dealing, and who can effectively "stay in business" because the state refuse to lift the ban and thus make drug usage and production a legal busniess venture, and thus giving the consumers ample opportunity to buy their drug of choice from legal sources who maintain a good reputation and don't engage in violent or heinous crimes like pimping, human slavery, murder, loan sharking and gun running.

So if cannabis usage isn't a "victimless crime" it is only so becuase the state maintains that it should be considered a crime. If the state didn't, you'd see a considerable drop in the "victim" department.

And there's really nothing you can present to argue against this fact...

 

[swolf]

Loitering

Just a friendly tip: Ya might want to add more to that post, even if it's just a filler sentence (for example, "I'm just typing this sentence to lengthen my post"). Mods don't like 1-word posts...or posts that are just a pic/video.

On topic: Thong swimsuits. I think that banana hammocks should be illegal. I live in FL, thong swimsuits are illegal yet overweight old guys can walk around in their skivvies? Seriously, put on some boardshorts.

 

[AvsJoe]

Jaywalking, speeding, running a stop sign or red light when you're the only one on the road, crossing the street at a non-designated crosswalk... Many of the various traffic laws have the potential for a victim, but most of the time they are victim-less.

 

[Randomologist]

Let's see. Speeding, loitering, and fox hunting are the main ones that spring to mind. I may be inclined to add smoking in pubs- surely its a failing of society where those who are asked politely don't put it out, but a ban seems excessive. Leave it to the discretion of the landlord. And just for the record, I'm a non-smoker.

Interesting to see what some think of the police. As far as I see, most actual police officers are ordinary folk trying to do their job. Some go power-tripping, looking for menial offences, some stick to the book over-zealously and don't know when to be flexible, but I don't think the majority of the problems lie with the human element of things.
Firstly, there's an awful lot of paperwork to be done, and in the UK the Crown Prosecution Service is notoriously slow.
Secondly, I don't think they have some of their priorities right. We spend millions each year, chasing up after motorists- but if you get mugged or burgled, it seems you're all but deserted. There's money to be made from fining motorists, and quotas to be filled.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Imagine making a VERY beautiful portrait of someone that inspired you greatly.

Now, this portrait, it took you quite the time to make and so on, so you decide it's the best to put it up on a museum for everyone to see it. Since it's your pride and joy. Plus you can sell it to someone who likes it so you can have money for your hard work.

But than when people come in the museum, they just take a photo of your picture and walks on. Surely it's not stealing, but no one really found the need of buying your painting which could had given you back money for the time and materials used in the progress of the painting.

So, they're basically copying your painting, most probably without your permission which they could sell onward or just hand out free. They didn't even find the need to even chat with you, as they had the liberty to just walk on and ignore you; the creator.

I'd guess that, if not stealing, is an infringement to copyright laws. The victim is probably you if you wanted money for the painting.

They also "stole" you a chance from getting the money in the first place with a good probability.
Ultimately, the victim is the creator.

I can't really see a difference in the 1's and 0's.

First of all, if I painted a portrait (which I actually have done in the past since i am an artist by hobby) I would paint the portrait simply for the sake of painting a portrait. That's what artistry is about.

The idea that making art somehow entitles you a profit is a capitalist idea that has nothing to do with art in the first place, invented by people who found out ways to profit mostly from other peoples artistic abilities.

An artist makes art for the sake of making art, not to make money. It's that simple. And if you as an artist have gone into artistry with the hope to make money, then perhaps it would be wise to change your career into something that's actually about making money.

But even if I didn't, it would be foolish of me to expect that I could OWN the actual experience of that portrait when I do such a dumb fucking thing as putting it out on public display. Sure I might be able to still claim ownership of the canvas, the frame and the paint, but once I decide to show my work to other people the very EXPERIENCE that the painting conveys by seeing it no longer belongs to me any more, because I have already given it away for free by letting it become a part of other peoples memories.

The very sight of it has already touched them, and some of them might even have photographic memories so they never need to look at it again (or paying for being able to do so) since they can recall it in perfact detail in their mind anyway.

So if I actually wanted to claim ownership of a particular work of art, the only sensible thing to do would be to only expose myself to it and keep it hidden and locked up from the rest of the world, never revealing it to anyone (something I actually do on many occasions since only about 5 % of my art is actually something I feel like sharing with others, while I keep the rest of it private and purely for my own satisfaction).

So ultimately, making a fuss about people taking pictures and copying my work, is basically making a fuss over something which have already occured the moment I decided to put up my work on public display. Making the bitching and moaning about someone snapping a picture with a camera for future reference a very trivial kind of bitching and moaning.

So your argument doesn't work on me, and the people that it might work on aren't artists really. They are "money makers", and since that is evidently their main passion in life, I suggest that they change careers into one that is more effective at making money than trying to "earn a living" through such a dirt poor and for most of the time COSTLY profession as being an artist.

Making money and becoming filthy rich through purely artistic pursuits (regardless if you sing, play instruments, draw, paint, whatever) isn't a right, it is a privilige that only a small number of fortunate people manage to achieve. This is something that this naive, pseudo-capitalist and "American Idol"-programmed generation needs to understand and grow the fuck up...

 

[thekrimzonguard]

There are many crimes that probably have no victim if committed in a certain way. I can think of some really petty ones:
- Pavement cycling - if there are no pedestrians (such a petty law anyway)
- Public urination - if done into an area that will not need cleaning and doesn't smell
- Drunken disorderliness - if noone cares about it
- Trespass - if noone notices and nothing's broken

And so on. My argument is, if noone is even ever aware of the crime, how much does that crime really count for?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Thank you, we got there in the end. fact is it is a crime. You've completely missed my point in thinking I think it SHOULD be illegal (for the record I do, but for other reasons than the ones I have put forward) and ignored that all I am arguing is that it's not a victimless crime.

Not really. The only thing that we've reached (or rather I reached it by myself and only used you as a debate wall) is the fact that it isn't really a "crime" in itself, however it is related to a "victimful" practice that is maintained by the state. Thus making the state the one tha is really responsible for all the victims related to cannabis usage, and not the cannabis users themselves...

 

[Marmooset]

Shoplifting is a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark.

"If I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I'd be at home with a pack of cigarettes and a short length of hose."

How could you?! Haven't you learned anything from that guy who gives those sermons at church? Captain What's-his-name? We live in a society of laws. Why do you think I took you to all those "Police Academy" movies? For fun? Well, I didn't hear anybody laughing! Did you?!

Marge, is Lisa at Camp Granada?

 

[Kair]

No. There has to be a victim for something to be a crime. What people call victimless crimes are not crimes at all.