Poll: Victimless crime.

[Mcupobob]

Well non-volient drug crimes is victemless and from personal expericans I can say the sheriff deparment(or police for you city-slickers) are brutal thugs with no sense of civil rights. Note I have no quarl with the police force that conducts in the city they haven't yet given me a reason to despise them.

 

[pelopelopelo]

talking about real crimes, not including underage drinking and the like. there are no victimless crimes.

by the way, i dont like how we have rules about what we can do and how we can do it. i mean, underage drinking is only there because of some dumbasses several years ago who fucked shit up for the rest of us

Well that's entirely arbitrary then. There can be just and unjust crimes, but crime is crime.

Definitely under-age drinking and drug laws, particularly if one were to, say, grow one's own weed and smoke it by oneself, thus handing no money to criminals. And the only reason 'victims' come into it when buying off dealers is BECAUSE IT IS A CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

 

[iLikeHippos]

First I'd like to apologize for not being thorough in my explanations. I've had... Or have a busy schedule that leaves me to a short period of discussion time.
Hell, I might just be slacking of in my text below, so I am just cutting it "short"

It was only an example for explaining just how someone can become a victim of pirating.

I disgree, and im going to tell you why.

Doesn't mean you can disregard the other people who are "money makers" and are trying their very best to hang on with their dreams though.
I am sure that any person who finds their dream wishes to stick to it, and by pirating you're not really helping.

The thing is, it is not the obligation of any single society or individual to actively work towards making other people achieve their "dreams".

For instance, I have a dream of instigating World War 3 and destroying about 95 percent of the human population on earth in the process. Now, most people wouldn't want to help me in this endavour, also a lot of people would actively try to stop me from succeeding with this dream of mine. Does that make me a "victim"? Does that make the people trying to stop me "criminals"?

Because, essentially the situation is exactly the same as with your example about artists only in it for the money. They have a "dream" about becoming filthy rich or earning a living through their art alone, yet some people don't feel like that's a reasonable dream to have, nor do they have any obligation or wish to help contribute to that dream either.

My point is, just because someone has a dream, it doesn't mean that everyon is obliged to play along and help make that dream a reality. And if you refuse to give up ridiculously lofty goals and dreams like that in favour of more reasonable and pragmatic ones then, it is YOU who are victimizing YOURSELF, not the people who just don't feel like playing along with your childish idealism.

Thus I find your conclusion that the "criminals" in this particular instance would be guilty of "victimizing" someone to be in error.

And by pirating, those "money makers" become the victims. You could suggest that they change their jobs, sure. But that is just like saying "If you don't like it, leave" which is such a dick move, really. I can't help but get frustrated when that line comes up.
Bugs the shit out of me...

It's not a dick move. It's one of the most reasonable suggestions there is. What's unreasonable however is demanding that other people should stick to playing according to YOUR rules all the time and start bitching and moaning about the people that don't feel obliged to do so.

It is also a matter of priorities and the "victims" ridiculous demand that they should be able to eat the cookie and still have it.

It is up to them to prioritize wht it is they actually want. Do they want to make money and earn a living first and foremost, or do they want to be famous artists? Sometimes you can't have both, and it isn't anyones "right" to have both at the same time. Thus a person has to learn to prioritize and maybe find a way to eventually have both. For instance, one could spend a few years making enough money to live off through purely money making pursuits, while during the next period devoting their life to become famous despite not having a regular source of income during that time.

But demanding and feeling entitled to payment when you're essentially trying to devote your time producing something that the world doesn't really "need" (no, as a matter of fact, it isn't vital to mankinds survival to have yet another fucking album from Britney Spears or another MMORPG from Blizzard) is just plain childish, and by passing laws and enforcing laws that basically enforce those childish demands and sense of entitlement just lets these people keep on living in a dream world where they never have to grow up and learn to prioritize like the rest of us.

And that is basically my point. There is a victim if the persons first intention was making money. If they are as artist-minded as you though (Not intended as an insult), than there really is no problem with the pirating.

When the victim becomes a victim more due to said victims self-victimization rather than the "crime" itself, I don't see how your point carries much merit. Sorry...

So, in a cut manner, you think that it is the artists/producers own fault for becoming artists/producers in the first place...?


Again, I might not have been specific enough in my explanation. - These artists are like any other. They love what they do, they have a strong passion for it, and they aim for glory and fame like any other, such as Iron Maiden.

But, they sell their music to people who listens to it.
If you don't care about their songs, you won't pirate their songs. It's only the potential customers doing such a thing.

And by that, they are taking something of worth. A song or two that could range up to 1$. No biggie, but they are stealing 1$ of what could had been money in the bank.

(On a larger scale, however, this becomes a problem.)

Not that they might just need this to get bread on their table, but they can't be expected to keep on playing if they suddenly find out that "their fan base is too low" when it actually isn't; They have just been stealing it illegally.
(Note: Pirating allows the users to steal files from the Internet undetected until the point it is investigated. Just being extra-explainy there)

They will become victims if the only ones listening to their songs will stop paying for it.


And don't think for a second they shouldn't get money for their work from the persons pirating. They ARE the customers just taking their albums/songs right of the bat without even a nickel left behind in appreciation.

In thus a manner, they ultimately become a victim. Just one song is enough to make them a victim as a matter of fact.

Hell, I'd be a victim if I sent out a song I made and someone chose to pirate it when I expect people to pay for keeping it.

I hope you'll never have to pay for an album you don't care for, nor any appreciation to someone you have never heard of, but that is not the case in pirating or marketing at all. It's about potential customers.
Again, pirates care only for products they have a good interest in. That being products that costs money.

 

[ace_of_something]

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..?

Allow me to get up from my desk for a moment... *goes and slaps around a drunk* alright. Now lets see, how can I answer this.

Victimless crime is a term invented by petty (and not so petty) criminals to try to justify there actions. There is NO SUCH THING. Many times people site drug and vice laws as victimless.
The victim of those laws is often the criminal themselves or their immediate family. It's easy to say 'i'm only hurting myself' but that's bullshit justification. You're hurting your family most likely, you're also wasting your potential and being a drain on society as a whole. By existing in the drug you also make everyone who comes in contact with you more likely to use and waste their lives.
I'm not saying everyone who uses drugs wastes their life but given what I've seen it's safe to say that is sure as hell doesn't help.

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to go write some reports involving people who STOLE OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY because they needed money to support the victimless crime of drug abuse. Or those totally harmless guys that shot another junkie to steal his drugs. On my 18th hour straight of 'sitting at a desk'. (which surprisingly has had very little sitting)
edit: the victim who was shot was okay. after a day in the hospital... which he can't pay for because of the victimless crime of habitual drug use.

Laws aren't definite. They don't define a victim. They just state what a group of people believes everyone else should or shouldn't do.

What? yes they do, in state, county, city laws the phrase 'the individual hereafter referred to as the VICTIM' comes up in nearly all laws. That's how a society works. You can justify any part of human behavior by handwaving it as you just did.

 

[open trap]

Is it a crime to j-walk, yes, if there are no cars what so ever does it cause problems, no.

 

[ace_of_something]

Is it a crime to j-walk, yes, if there are no cars what so ever does it cause problems, no.

Basically you're saying it's okay and victimless as long as nothing bad happens? So DUI's are victimless as long as no-one is killed?
Most people who get hit by a car don't see the car...
Either way in 10 years I have only sited one person for jaywalking and that's because he was very obviously high out of his mind and just needed to be off the streets for a couple hours instead of trying to sing to no-one in particular in the middle of the street.

 

[Billion Backs]

Growing and using your own weed. Victimless.

Digitally pirating something you weren't going to or had no way of buying. Victimless.

Suicide. Although I doubt most advanced countries count it as a crime. I hope not. Victimless because you're your own victim, and frankly you're the only one who should have the final say in what you do to your own body. Your relatives aren't victims, if you felt like killing yourself for a good reason they should go get a life.

Underage drinking. Obvious reasons.

Consensual underage sex. But then again, it's not a crime in most modern legal systems that have "Romeo and Juliet" laws that more or less make sure that, say, a 17 and 19 year old couple that choose to have sex and are caught doing it are not going to be tried for having sex with a minor.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

My stance is if its a crime there must be a victim of some degree, why else would it be a crime?

Corporate lobbyists?

Drug laws, abortion laws, copyright laws, and many other laws have been heavily influenced by lobbyists and other forms of bribery. There's lots of money in crime, just take a look at the prison-industrial complex. Private prison's rake in tons of money each year, and obviously they want to make more money, so it's no surprising that they spend a considerable amount of time lobbying for stricter and stricter laws on drugs, because more people can get thrown in jail.

Planned Parenthood also lobbies to keep abortion legal and to promote other pro-choice laws, because that's what makes them money.

Media corporations lobby and push for stricter copyright laws. The Copyright Term Extension Act [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act] was the result of this. It extended copyright protection to the life of the author plus 70 years, and allows them to make a lot of money, even after the artist is long dead, such is the case with the birthday theme song, which is still under copyright today. Restaurants that want to sing happy birthday to their customers have to pay for the rights to use it.

I mean, whether you think these laws are good or not, we all have to realize that many of our current laws are not being made with what's best for us in mind, but what's best for the people with the money, namely corporations, big businesses, and interest groups. And really, if it's not the voice the people being heard, but the voice of people looking to make money, does that make for the best laws? Hell no.

 

[bjj hero]

snip

Honestly, I think that cannabis will be legalised at some point. Don't use it myself but whatever mows your lawn. You say that the majority want it legal, if the majority of people who felt that way voted it might be by now. There are plenty of conservatives, vocal special interest groups, old wrinklies etc. who do vote and think cannabis is evil that it has stayed illegal.

I'm not going to stereotype cannabis users, I've known plenty with lots of back grounds, but there is a certain group who wear track suits, sovereigns and carry asbos for antisocial behaviour who will not vote and do ther rest no favours. Its great you saying that hypothetically you could grow you own in your own little microcosom, smoking alone, but this is so so rarely the case. Unheard of I'd argue. Yes legalising it would cut organised crime out of the picture but while this is not the case you are doing harm by supporting your local dealer. A "if you grow it yourself and never sell it" get out clause in the law would cut the amount of dealers prosecuted to near nil. It's not going to happen. That would support organised crime, causeing more harm than good.

There are health conserns with cannabis use, saying its not as bad as alcohol does not make this go away. You claim the masses could rise up and say they love them some cannabis but right now this isn't happening. I live in the UK so I'm not going to generalise into countries and cultures I know nothing about but as a nation, our culture involves drinking. We have done it for thousands of years, it was tied to our religion, brewed at home and drank instead of water because it was safer than the sludge in the rivers and wells. It is part of our culture as a nation and has been for thousands of years. That is the big reason why you can buy alcohol at most stores and have to go to the dodgy guy on the corner to get cannabis. You cannot say the same for cannabis, it is completely different than your suggestion of people saying "I used to smoke it with my dad, its the culture, init?"

Personally I don't care. I haven't drank since Christmas, I dont smoke and dont do drugs. Ban the lot or legalise it all for my liking, it won't affect me. The only thing I don't like is when you can smell it in town or at the park when I'm with my son. If you drink in the park that affects you (you alccie waster), if you smoke in the park other people are breathing it in. I feel the same way about tobacco. Have some consideration for others. I'll stop there as this is for another thread at another time.

 

[CoverYourHead]

Underage viewing of pornography! Not really underage mind you, but like 16+ and such. No real victims there.

That's all I can think of anyway.

 

[Frequen-Z]

4 pages and nobody has said Blasphemy?! I am shocked and appalled.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

The victim of those laws is often the criminal themselves or their immediate family. It's easy to say 'i'm only hurting myself' but that's bullshit justification. You're hurting your family most likely, you're also wasting your potential and being a drain on society as a whole. By existing in the drug you also make everyone who comes in contact with you more likely to use and waste their lives.
I'm not saying everyone who uses drugs wastes their life but given what I've seen it's safe to say that is sure as hell doesn't help.

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to go write some reports involving people who STOLE OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY because they needed money to support the victimless crime of drug abuse. Or those totally harmless guys that shot another junkie to steal his drugs. On my 18th hour straight of 'sitting at a desk'. (which surprisingly has had very little sitting)
edit: the victim who was shot was okay. after a day in the hospital... which he can't pay for because of the victimless crime of habitual drug use.

I think we can agree that in many cases, drug use hurts the user and other people.

But is throwing the person in jail the best way to solve that problem? I don't think putting drug users in prison helps them or society in most cases, and it surely doesn't help to do that in the cases where the drug use is actually victimless.

Your examples of drug related violence is more proof that drug laws that criminalize the users don't work.

The reason people steal and kill to get drugs is because the addiction is strong, and in the world of the black market, drug prices are inflated and the conditions are dangerous, because they don't give a shit about other human beings. They want money. When someone is addicted to drugs, no one is there to help them, they have the choice between three things: Jail, suffering from the painful effects of addiction withdrawal, or to get more drugs in dangerous, underground conditions at inflated prices. This crime is the result of our attitude towards drugs to look at it as a criminal problem rather then a social and health problem. Drug users are victims, and part of the reason for that is the terrible things that hard drugs do to people, but it's also our laws. We victimize the drug user, we punish them and throw them in jail instead of helping them get off drugs.

Not to mention that people that aren't even victims of drugs, people who use them moderately and still lead good lives are being made into victims of our laws.

And people being a drain on society? Tons of things could be called that. Obesity, smoking, mental retardation, and many other health issues costs us. Obese people often have heart problems and other issues that need treatment, people that smoke have lung issues among many other things, people with mental issues need extra time and care provided to them so they can be educated. The same with drugs, it's a health problem.

Now, it could be argued that "well it's the drug user's fault that they took drugs in the first place," and that's all fine, except that you would be ignoring the many social and economic factors that often result in drug use such as poverty, abusive parents, growing up in areas with high crime and lack of education. When you count these things in, is it really the drug user's fault? And isn't it technically someone's fault if they become fat? Why don't we throw them in prison as well? I mean, they are a drain on society. Same with people who smoke. It's because we don't look at these as crimes, but as social and health problems, and we want to help them while still allowing them the freedom to partake in destructive because it would not only be incredibly stupid and inhumane to criminalize such activities and would probably only make the problems worse, but because they should have the freedom to live the lifestyle they want, even if it is destructive.

 

[Ekonk]

4 pages and nobody has said Blasphemy?! I am shocked and appalled.

Blasphemy isn't really a crime punishable by the law in most lands (where'd you wanna be).

I have to admit this popped into mind as well, because I've been brainwashed by Richard Dawkins.

 

[Frequen-Z]

When someone is addicted to drugs, no one is there to help them, they have the choice between three things: Jail, suffering from the painful effects of addiction withdrawal, or to get more drugs in dangerous, underground conditions at inflated prices.

You forgot rehab. The systems are there for drug users, it's normally the willpower that isn't.

4 pages and nobody has said Blasphemy?! I am shocked and appalled.

Blasphemy isn't really a crime punishable by the law in most lands (where'd you wanna be).

I have to admit this popped into mind as well, because I've been brainwashed by Richard Dawkins.

I do love me some Dawkins. Seen him a fair bit on TV. I own The God Delusion but I'm terrible with books, I've had it about 6 months now and I'm about a third through.

 

[ace_of_something]

The victim of those laws is often the criminal themselves or their immediate family. It's easy to say 'i'm only hurting myself' but that's bullshit justification. You're hurting your family most likely, you're also wasting your potential and being a drain on society as a whole. By existing in the drug you also make everyone who comes in contact with you more likely to use and waste their lives.
I'm not saying everyone who uses drugs wastes their life but given what I've seen it's safe to say that is sure as hell doesn't help.

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to go write some reports involving people who STOLE OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY because they needed money to support the victimless crime of drug abuse. Or those totally harmless guys that shot another junkie to steal his drugs. On my 18th hour straight of 'sitting at a desk'. (which surprisingly has had very little sitting)
edit: the victim who was shot was okay. after a day in the hospital... which he can't pay for because of the victimless crime of habitual drug use.

I think we can agree that in many cases, drug use hurts the user and other people.

But is throwing the person in jail the best way to solve that problem?

I'm gonna stop your right there. Rarely, RARELY do people who only have a possession drug crime go to true jail. I mean MJ less than an Oz (or 2 Oz in some areas) just gets you a ticket, a ticket that costs less than speeding. Most people who see jail time are dealers. Sometimes yes people in possession get time in jail but they are carrying WAY too much to be a user reasonably. A guy with four kilos of cocaine is not just 'a user.' Many low level dealers don't see much jail time instead they go to 'drug court' and go to a special jail which offers rehab, classes on life skills and all that good stuff. In fact most jails with more than 500 beds have some sort of rehabilitation classes offered. (AA, NA, Anger Management etc.)
I will not contest many of your other points. They do not conflict with my original idea that drug laws DO have a victim.

 

[manaman]

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.

You don't have to be a part of the accident to cause an accident. No, jaywalking on non high speed roads (35 MPH and under) shouldn't be a punishable crime unless something happens (and it normally isn't), but jaywalking on high speed roads defiantly shouldn't be encouraged.

(mine being: the police are fucking useless bullies in uniforms who only leave their desks to beat up drunks)

People who say that always go crying to the police at the first sign of trouble.

There is something to the us vs. them mentality people have. The police are the guys that give them tickets and stop them having fun with their friends on the weekends.

The police get into that mentality as well, always sticking up for fellow police, seeing people as the enemy.

 

[Superbeast]

Digitally pirating something you weren't going to or had no way of buying. Victimless.

Just one thing I want to pick out amidst the piracy debate:

If you weren't going to buy it or had no interest in it, why did you want to own it (and thus download it) in the first place?

Also, how can you have no way of buying virtually anything pirateable, with the internet at your fingertips? I've imported CDs from all over the world that aren't available in shops here in the UK (although I suppose "regions" of games may be problematic).

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

It wasn't arson. Arson is a deliberate act. He burned down his apartment because he was so stoned that he dropped his joint into the couch and allowed it to burn. If he hadn't been doing drugs, it wouldn't have happened.

And that's just the result of drug use. We won't even go into ramifications of the drug trade, which is required to get the drugs into the hands of these idiots.

Okay, fair enough. It proves you shouldn't handle fire near flammable materials while under the influence of intoxicants. It's still not the drugs fault. Had he been getting stoned on MDMA or had he been shooting heroin he wouldn't have had any access to any burning materials and thus would have been unable to burn down an apartment building.

Your argument still fails, mate...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Ah, I understand. You don't feel that people should charge people for selling things that are the product of their hard work or graft because they don't "need" it. Well have you not considered that the people producing the products may be doing so because they NEED the money.

If they have such abad need for money, they can get a real job like the rest of us instead of expecting to earn a living through utterly useless pursuits like artistic ones.

You're just another person who feels entitled to take whatever they want. Yes, you're far more of a self entitled fuck than the person who produces a product TO SURVIVE.

Nope, im not. Im actually a producer of artistic works myself. The thing is, im not as delusional as the self entitled fucks who think they have any sort of right to claim ownership of an EXPERIENCE.

Also, I do consider myself entitled to review a full copy in order to make an informed decision whether top pay the exorbitant fees that major corporations expect me to pay simply for owning a copy of the media which that experience is recorded onto, due to the fact that I wish to actually CONTRIBUTE to the economical growth of an artistic industry, but I can't really afford to take chances with what im buying and thus have to make informed choices based on a full review of the artistic expression in question.

Otherwise I'd simply have to choose not to buy anything at all, and in the long run, that's not what the industry really wants me to do.

So your conclusion is in error.

Of course, maybe we should just get rid of entertainment altogether since they obviously don't deserve to get paid for their work. I think we should dispose of all music, tv and games of those who don't want to have any money to teach you selfish digusting fucks a lesson. Lets see you survive then, asshole.

I'll survive just fine you self-righteous cretin. In fact, I wouldn't mind a considerable downsize of the entertainmen industry as it is. The very fact that sums of money reach the level of national debts of small countries are wasted in making ONE SINGLE MOVIE PRODUCTION is in itself an inexcusable crime against humanity. So I wouldn't mind the destruction of the organized entertainment industry in the slightest.

"Bring it on" I say.

And by your logic, makking fraudulant money isn't a victimless crime either. You don't have any understanding of economics, do you?

I have a better understanding of economics than you could ever hope to achieve.