Category Archives: Victimless Crimes

Books on Victimless Crime

Victimless crime are those that are of the nature of illegal gambling, drug use, and selling sex, where the victim does not experience harm and is indeed a willing participant. Certain status offense which may include consumption of alcohol, truancy, and running away from home are also victimless crimes. Conflict perspectives hold that victimless crimes are criminal only because politically powerful people or groups find them undesirable or offensive.

Functionalist explanation holds that social need, not social power, underlies the labeling of victimless behavior as criminal under labeling theory. According to some, victimless crimes should not be regulated by criminal law. Victimless crimes are illegal acts in which the only victims are the offenders. Victimless crimes are established for social control over morality and other social relationship and are applied mostly to the lower classes. Victimless crime includes criminal or illegal acts in which all participants are consenting adults.

Victimless crimes are criminal only because politically powerful people or groups find them undesirable or offensive. Examples of victimless crimes include sex crimes, drug use, illegal gambling, sports such as cock fighting. There is an absence of restrictions against elite deviance. The small amount of street crime keeps the focus off of elite deviance. It is easier and more acceptable for upper class people with deviant behavior to engage in victimless crimes.

The classic definition of victimless crime assumes, "There is never a victim" in sex crimes or drug use. A re-examination of consent indicates that people consent under pressure. Victimless crime often does have a victim, but at some level, the harm is self-inflicted.

INSIDER TRADING: THE CASE AGAINST THE VICTIMLESS CRIME HYPOTHESIS- Norman S. Douglas This paper challenges the long held hypothesis that insider trading is a victimless crime.

Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman- WALTER E. BLOCK, ROBERT W. MCGEE The legal theory of blackmail is the veritable puzzle surrounded by a mystery wrapped in an enigma. The authors maintain that since it is legal to gossip, it should therefore not be against the law to threaten to gossip, unless paid off not to do so. In a word, blackmail is a victimless crime, and must be legalized, if justice is to be attained.

Are Victimless Crimes Actually Harmful?- Louis Veneziano, Carol Veneziano A victimless crime is an illegal act that is a consensual crime and lacks a complaining participant, including such activities as drug use, gambling and prostitution. No one is harmed, or if harm occurs, it is negated by the informed consent of willing participants.

Software Piracy is not a victimless crime Many people, industries and economies are being affected as a direct result of the growing problem of software piracy. In this essay, the authors make a closer examination into software piracy to see what it is, how big it is, who the victims of software piracy are and how they are affected by it.

American Holocaust: The Price of Victimless Crime Laws - Tim O'Donnell In the United States, victimless crime laws are used almost exclusively for morality control, that is, a politically correct way of describing religious persecution. The devastation that has been wrought by the victimless crime laws in the United States is detailed in American Holocaust.

See original here:

Victimless crime are those that are of the nature of ...

Learn what constitutes victimless crimes. Review the definition of the term and examine different types of victimless crimes. Finally, review several examples of victimless crimes that likely occur every day.

A fun weekend trip to Las Vegas, also known as 'Sin City,' stereotypically includes the opportunities to engage in several victimless crimes, such as public drunkenness, prostitution, illegal drug use and of course, gambling.

A victimless crime is an act that is illegal but has no direct victim. Typically, the parties involved are voluntarily acting. Also, the parties may be consenting adults. Therefore, there is no harm directly and specifically imposed upon another person and as a result, there is no victim.

Let' take a look to some of the victimless crimes that do not specifically and directly harm another person. These include the following:

Let's look at a couple of examples to get a better understanding of what constitutes a victimless crime.

Imagine that Florence wants to snort cocaine. When she does this, it is in the confines of her home and only she becomes high on the drug. While the activity is illegal, there is no injury done to another person and, therefore, no victim. Consequently, this is an example of a victimless crime.

Get FREE access for 5 days, just create an account.

No obligation, cancel anytime.

Select a subject to preview related courses:

Now, imagine that Mary is a prostitute and Bob is a customer. Bob pays Mary for sex, and Mary provides the service to Bob. The two are engaged in a consensual, adult activity. There are no victims who sustain damage or injury. As a result, this is also a victimless crime.

Victimless crimes are crimes that do not directly and specifically harm another party. Moreover, the parties involved in the crimes are usually consulting and voluntarily participating adults. Therefore, there is no victim. Some examples of victimless crimes are public drunkenness, prostitution, illegal drug use and suicide.

See the original post:

Victimless Crimes: Definition, Types & Examples - Video ...

Victimless Crimes

Carol A. Veneziano, Ph.D., Professor, Southeast Missouri State University, cveneziano@semo.edu

A victimless crime is an illegal act that involves consenting adults and lacks a complaining participant (Schur, 1965). Such acts have been defined as illegal, but there is no victim that claims to have been harmed; either no harm has occurred, or if harm has occurred to those involved, it is negated because its willing participants have given informed consent to the activity (Stitt, 1988). Victimless crimes are also sometimes referred to as public order offenses. Although there has been some disagreement over which crimes are victimless, five of the most commonly identified victimless crimes are gambling, drug use, pornography, prostitution, and homosexuality. Additionally, abortion is sometimes referred to as a victimless crime, although this classification has been highly controversial (Brown, Esbensen and Geis, 2010). Adultery and fornication might formerly be referred to as victimless crimes, but in most states these acts are no longer crimes (Harcourt, 1999).

Victimless crimes have been the topic of heated debate, primarily centering on the question as to whether these acts ought to be crimes at all. The arguments take several forms. One of the controversies involves the importance of personal freedom versus societys imperative to uphold moral standards. A second issue addresses the problem of the concept of harm. Concerns are raised as to whether victimless crimes are harmful not only to the participants but to others in society, and whether such acts result in negative consequences that might not be immediately apparent. In addition, a final issue is whether attempts to control victimless crimes are helpful or detrimental to the criminal justice system and society in terms of cost effectiveness.

The oldest argument concerning victimless crimes concerns personal freedom. If the individuals involved are consenting adults, they should be free in a democratic society to engage in these behaviors, even if that conduct should be unwise for the individual (Feinberg, 1984). According to this perspective, the government should not be involved in enforcing morality and coercing its citizens to follow particular standards of behavior, thus interfering with their liberty. On the other hand, some scholars have argued that it is important to uphold moral standards in society. Such acts should be against the law because they are wrong (sometimes referred to as legal moralism). If a society does not have standards, there will be chaos. There are acts that are generally regarded as immoral in a culture; a policy that allows such acts would weaken the social cohesion and consensus about appropriate behavior and ultimately lead to the collapse of society (Devlin, 1965).

The second argument against victimless crimes is that they harm no one else, except possibly the individuals involved, who are free to do as they please. Some scholars, however, have argued that participants in these crimes do not hurt only themselves. The offenders families may be hurt, and victimless crimes could even lead to other problems where there are unwilling victims (Meier and Geis, 1997). For example, prostitution and homosexuality might lead to the spread of AIDS. Drug abusers might commit crimes to obtain drugs; pornography, it is argued, leads to the degradation not only of the participants but of women in general. In response, critics of victimless crime laws point out that families are often hurt by many acts a family member could commit, and people generally may engage in acts that are indirectly harmful to others, such as investing unwisely in the stock market, eating fast food that results in medical bills which increase insurance costs, and other practices that are not illegal. The law cannot begin to prohibit so many potentially harmful practices, so it should not forbid other practices that are less socially acceptable.

However, some researchers have indicated that victimless crimes are harmful in ways that do argue for their control and criminalization. The broken windows argument of crime prevention (Wilson and Kelling, 1982) has altered the harm argument significantly. This theory states that if such phenomena as minor disorderly conduct, prostitution, liquor shops, illicit drugs and the sale of pornography go unattended, serious crime will increase in a neighborhood. An area that appears disorderly, (broken windows), is vulnerable to invasion by criminals, thus affecting the quality of lives of its residents and with potentially devastating economic effects. Neighborhoods whose residents believe that they can regulate public behavior by informal controls tend to be areas which discourage potential offenders. On the other hand, areas which appear to tolerate disorder, where no one seems to care or to control the physical environment, tend to encourage other more serious types of crime. Thus disorder and victimless acts should be discouraged so as to protect neighborhoods and residents.

In the 1960s and 1970s, victimless crimes were being decriminalized in many states. As a consequence of the broken windows concept, some places, particularly large cities such as Chicago and New York, have made more aggressive efforts to apprehend those involved in victimless crimes. The rationale for this change in policy has been on the basis that victimless crimes lead to more crime which tends to discourage economic enterprises such as business and tourism, and to interfere with the quality of life of its residents (Harcourt, 1999).

The impact of victimless offenses on other crimes and on community economy has not been well researched. One empirical study was conducted concerning gambling, which has been made legal in many communities as a result of casinos. Analysis found few consistent findings. Crime rates increased significantly in some casino communities, remained relatively stable in others, and decreased in some communities. It was concluded that crime does not inevitably increase when legalized gambling is available, but that the effects of casinos on crime appear to be related to a variety of variables that are not yet well understood (Stitt, Nichols and Giacopassi, 2003). In order to examine the effects of legalization of gambling, as well as other victimless crimes, more empirical studies are clearly needed.

A further issue that has been the focus of considerable debate concerns the impact of victimless crime laws on the criminal justice system. The enforcement of victimless crime laws has been associated with police discretion and increased police corruption, and may also be associated with the violation of civil liberties against citizens (Acuri, Gunn and Lester, 1987). The enforcement of victimless crime laws might also lead its perpetrators to commit other crimes that they would not commit if these victimless acts were legal (for example, if drug use was legal, some perpetrators would not commit property or other crimes to obtain money for their drugs). Additionally the enforcement of victimless crime leads to increased jail populations at considerable cost (Taylor, 2001). Furthermore, there is concern that enforcement of victimless crime laws may divert time and funds for the criminal justice system from other more serious crime and more important issues. Since it is not even the case that police can be particularly effective at enforcing these law, some scholars argue that it is not worthwhile, since there are so many other pressing crime issues (Skolnick, 1978; Barkan, 1997).

Yet another problem is that victimless crime provides revenue for organized crime. Victimless crimes often provide goods and services (such gambling, prostitution, and drugs) for which there is considerable demand. Organized crime has been able to provide these desired commodities, and victimless crimes serve to fund these groups, creating a lucrative market and keeping such groups in business. The argument has been made that organized crime contributes to corruption of criminal justice officials; however, the counterargument has been that there would still be opportunities for corruption even if victimless crimes were legal. Yet, although the goods and services provided might not involve a complaining victim, it is the case that members of organized crime engage in other corrupt and dangerous criminal practices such as loansharking and extortion, thus contributing to the serious and violent crime rates. There are thus arguments both for and against legalization of victimless crimes with respect to the role of organized crime (Kenney and Finckenauer, 1995).

More subtly, the enforcement of victimless crime laws might lead to public disrespect for the law. If citizens believe that such laws are overreaching and interfere with their liberties, this perception might affect their general views of the criminal justice system. These laws are difficult to enforce, since they are usually not even reported, and provide goods and services that are in demand. As such, the laws are likely to be violated, weakening law abiding behaviors. If they are associated with police corruption and organized crime enterprises, negative views of the police and the law again seem likely to result (Skolnick, 1978; Kenney and Finckenauer, 1995).

Furthermore, it has been pointed out that victimless crimes tend to reflect the moral beliefs of the powerful, and as such reflect social inequality. Those citizens who influence lawmaking have tended to be white middle and upper class Protestants, and the laws tend to affect the poor and minorities. There are numerous examples. The temperance movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s was led by white Protestants who considered alcohol a sin and disliked Catholics, immigrants and the poor who used alcohol (Kenney and Finkenauer, 1995). When prostitution laws are enforced, poor streetwalkers are much more likely to be arrested than call girls who cater to richer clients, and prostitutes in general are legally more at risk than their male customers. Gambling by the poor, such as running the numbers has been illegal, but gambling on the stock market or in the casinos is legal (Barkan, 1997). Some drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol, are legal even though they cause harm. Recently drug laws have been criticized as racist, because the penalties have disproportionately affected African Americans, as their incarceration rates have risen dramatically relative to white drug users (Bobo and Thompson, 2006). The homeless tend to be arrested for victimless crimes for acts which actually involve maintaining survival without housing (Fischer, 1988). Given the inconsistencies, the perception can be created that the laws apply only to the powerless, and that victimless crimes are used as surrogates for other political issues concerning class and race (Dombrink, 1993).

A small number of studies of public perceptions of victimless crimes have indicated that the public finds these acts less serious than other types of crimes, ranking them relatively low in terms of crime seriousness (Miethe, 1982; Veneziano and Veneziano, 1993). A religious affiliation and a higher level of religiosity are associated with a stronger condemnation of victimless crime (Koster and Heike, 2009). However, victimless crimes are perceived to be harmful in a number of studies, to self, family and society (Veneziano and Veneziano, 1993; Harcourt, 1999). Other perceptual research has focused on the police. A survey found that police officers differ greatly in their use of discretion and that discretion is most often used for traffic violations and victimless crimes. Another study indicated that police did not view such crimes as a serious problem, and tended to believe that it is futile to attempt to control such acts (Wilson, Cullen, Latessa and Wills, 1985). Research with sheriffs found that they tended to believe that attempts to police public order offenses had a detrimental effect on their departments, but that they were unwilling to decriminalize such these acts (Kincade and Leone, 1993). More research in the area of perceptions would appear to be indicated.

Policies and prosecution of victimless crimes have changed significantly. Despite the debates that have conducted for decades, the trend has been that most victimless crimes have gradually been decriminalized, sometimes referred to as decriminalization drift (Brown, Esbensen and Geis, 2010). Adultery and fornication have been removed from state statutes. Abortion, although still a matter of great controversy, is legal under certain conditions. Gambling, once permitted only in Nevada, is legal today in almost all jurisdictions through lotteries and casinos. Homosexuality, while illegal in some states, is seldom prosecuted; the major issues in recent years have concerned gay marriage and policies concerning military service. Only streetwalker prostitutes, largely powerless and catering to the marginal client, continue to be prosecuted (sporadically) by the criminal justice system (Harcourt, 1999; Brown, Esbensen, and Geis, 2010). On the other hand, drug use, once allowed and even socially acceptable, is now punished much more severely, and increases in prison populations reflect this change in policy. Therefore, the prosecution of victimless crimes also reflects changes in attitudes and moral standards, as well as political factors and social forces, complicating the debate even further.

Victimless crimes highlight a significant number of issues concerning crime, morality and the criminal justice system. More research needs to be conducted in a number of areas, including: (1) perceptions of the public and police concerning various victimless crimes, including perceived seriousness and harm; (2) the impact of victimless crimes on other members of society, including quality of life issues; (3) the potential economic impact of the various victimless acts (both positive and negative), and the community factors that affect economic impact; and (4) further study of the effect of specific acts on police, other members of the criminal justice system, and on organized crime.

It seems unlikely that the debates concerning such acts as homosexuality, prostitution, drug use, gambling and pornography will be resolved. There are not clearly accepted definitions of consensus or harm or offender or victim concerning such acts (de Haan. 1990). The issue of harm is a major point of contention in the debate. It is not clear whether the concept of harm should be confined to the actions of the individuals involved, or whether potential harm to others or society should be a factor, and to what degree. Even then, the question is whether ignoring victimless crime does more harm than good versus prosecuting such acts, as either policy potentially appears to have both positive and negative consequences, for both citizens and the criminal justice system.

SEE ALSO: Prostitution, Gambling, Pornography, Drug Crimes, Homosexuality, Public Order Crimes, Abortion, Crime and Morality, Broken Windows, Decriminalization

References

Arcuri, A., Gunn, M. & Lester, D. (1987). Measuring police discretion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64 (3), 774785.

Barkan, S.E. (1997). Criminology: A sociological understanding. Upper Saddle River N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Bobo, L.D. & Thompson, V. (2006). Unfair by design: The war on drugs, race and the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Social Research, 73 (2), 445-474.

Brown, S.E. & Esbensen, F. & Geis, G. (2010). Criminology: Explaining crime and its context. New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company.

De Haan, W. (1990). The Politics of Redress: Crime, punishment and penal abolition. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Devlin, P. (1965). The Enforcement of Morals. London: Oxford University Press.

Dombrink, J. (1993). Victimless Crimes and the Culture Wars of the 1990s. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 9 (1), 30- 40.

Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to Self: The moral limits of the Criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fischer, P. J. (1988). Criminal activity among the homeless: A study of arrests in Baltimore. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 39 (1), 46-51.

Harcourt , B. (1999). The collapse of the harm principle. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 90 (1), 109-194.

Kenney, D.J. & Finchenauer, J.O. (1995). Organized Crime in America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Kincade, P. & Leone, M. (1993). Victimizing the system: The sheriffs perspective on public order criminality and criminal justice. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 9 (1), 1529.

Koster, F., & Heike, G. (2009). Shame and Punishment: An International Comparative Study on the Effects of Religious Affiliation and Religiosity on Attitudes to Offending. European Journal of Criminology, 6 (6), 481495.

Meier, R.F. & Geis, G. (1997). Victimless crime? Prostitution, Drugs, Homosexuality, Abortion. Los Angeles: Roxbury Press.

Miethe, T. (1982). Public consensus on crime seriousness. Criminology, 20 (1), 515-526.

Schur, E. (1965). Crimes without Victims: Deviant behavior and public policy. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Skolnick, J. H. (1978). The legalization of deviance. Criminology, 16 (2), 193208.

Stitt, B. G. (1988). Victimless crime: A definitional issue. Journal of Crime and Justice, 11 (2), 87102.

Stitt, B.G., Nichols, M., & Giacopassi, D. (2003). Does the presence of casinos increase crime? An examination of casino and control communities. Crime and Delinquency, 49 (2), 253-284.

Taylor, R. (2001). Getting tough on crime: What does it mean? Free Inquiry, 21 (3), 3233.

Veneziano, L. & Veneziano, C.A. (1993). Are Victimless Crimes Actually Harmful? Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 9 (1), 114.

Wilson, G., Cullen, F., Latessa, E., & Wills, J. (1985). State Intervention and Victimless Crimes: A Study of Police Attitudes. Journal of Police Science & Administration, 13 (1), 2229.

Wilson, J.Q. & Kelling, G.L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic 256, 29-38.

Further Readings

Chilton, R. & DeAmicis, J. (1975). Overcriminalization and the measurement of consensus. Sociology & Social Research, 59 (4), 318329.

Cohn, A. (1984). Drugs, crime and criminal justice: State-of-the-art and future directions. Federal Probation, 48 (3), 1324.

Farabee, D, Joshi, V. & Anglin, D. (2001). Addiction careers and criminal specialization. Crime & Delinquency, 47 (2), 196220.

Newman, G. & Trilling, C. (1975). Public Perceptions of Criminal Behavior: A Review of the Literature. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2 (3), 217236.

Hart, H.L.A. (1963). Law, Liberty, and Morality. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

Mill, J.S. (1859). On Liberty. Indianapolis: Library of Liberal Arts.

Suggs, D., Leisure. D., Newton & Irvine (1981). A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of the Impact of Nebraskas Decriminalization of Marijuana. Law & Human Behavior, 5 (1), 45-71.

Go here to see the original:

victimless crimes - Southeast Missouri State University

Analysis

Wisconsin has slipped slightly since the last edition of the index and is now just outside the bottom 10. However, this is one state that may already be improving due to legislative changes since the data cutoff for this study. For example, Governor Scott Walker and the state legislature have agreed to budget cuts in education and other areas, while passing Act 10which aims to limit the bargaining power of public employee unions (though it is unclear whether this law will survive legal challenges). A study by the Wisconsin-based MacIver Institute for Public Policy argues that Act 10 has already saved taxpayers $2 billion.1 Therefore, Wisconsins rank is likely to improve in the next edition of Freedom in the 50 States.

Wisconsin ranks near the bottom in economic freedom, due primarily to its poor fiscal policy. Wisconsins overall tax burden is very high, as are individual income and property taxes. State spending and debt are roughly average. However, its benefit payments are quite high, as is its level of transportation spending. Moreover, Wisconsin government employment is quite large relative to the private workforce.

Wisconsin fares a lot better in regulatory policy, ranking 15th. It is slightly worse than average in terms of land-use regulation but has passed some eminent domain reforms. Wisconsins labor market freedom, occupational freedom, health insurance freedom, and liability system are mediocre. It is not (yet) a right-to-work state, but has avoided mandating a minimum wage above the federal average or requiring employers to buy short-term disability insurance. Wisconsin does not have community rating (though there are small-group rate bands) or rate reviews. Wisconsin has also deregulated cable and telecom. It does quite well in terms of insurance rate filing requirements. However, it is almost a standard deviation worse than the mean on occupational licensing.

Wisconsin performs below average in a number of personal freedom categories. The state has high victimless crimes arrest rates, though its drug enforcement rate is below average. It has the worst gaming laws in the country (social gambling is not allowed) and almost the strictest campaign finance laws. The state also performs below average on gun freedom and travel freedom. Home schools are regulated with some onerous notification requirements. Wisconsin has some of the best alcohol laws in the country, with taxes fairly low across the board. However, its cigarette taxes are very high and smoking bans are extensive. Wisconsin recently enacted a domestic partnership law. Its asset forfeiture laws score well (over one standard deviation better than average).

Read the original:

Freedom in the 50 States 2013 | Wisconsin Overall Freedom ...

Tetra Images - Jamie Grill/ Brand X Pictures

A crime is defined as any act that is contrary to legal code or laws. There are many different types of crimes, from crimes against persons to victimless crimes and violent crimes to white collar crimes. With each type of crime also come different sociological phenomena and demographic profiles.

Crimes Against Persons

Crimes against persons, also called personal crimes, include murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery.

Personal crimes are unevenly distributed in the United States, with young, urban, poor, and racial minorities committing these crimes more than others.

Crimes Against Property

Property crimes involve theft of property without bodily harm, such as burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson. Like personal crimes, young, urban, poor, and racial minorities generally commit these crimes more than others.

Crimes Against Morality

Crimes against morality are also called victimless crimes because there is not complainant, or victim. Prostitution, illegal gambling, and illegal drug use are all examples of victimless crimes.

White-Collar Crime

White-collar crimes are crimes that committed by people of high social status who commit their crimes in the context of their occupation. This includes embezzling (stealing money from ones employer), insider trading, and tax evasion and other violations of income tax laws.

White-collar crimes generally generate less concern in the public mind than other types of crime, however in terms of total dollars, white-collar crimes are even more consequential for society.

Nonetheless, these crimes are generally the least investigated and least prosecuted.

Organized Crime

Organized crime is crime committed by structured groups typically involving the distribution of illegal goods and services to others. Many people think of the Mafia when they think of organized crime, but the term can refer to any group that exercises control over large illegal enterprises (such as the drug trade, illegal gambling, prostitution, weapons smuggling, or money laundering).

A key sociological concept in the study or organized crime is that these industries are organized along the same lines as legitimate businesses and take on a corporate form. There are typically senior partners who control the business profits, workers who manage and work for the business, and clients who buy the goods and services that the organization provides.

A Sociological Look at Crime

Arrest data show a clear pattern of arrests in terms of race, gender, and class. For instance, as mentioned above, young, urban, poor, and racial minorities generally commit personal and property crimes more so than other demographic groups. To sociologists, the question posed by this data is whether this reflects actual differences in committing crimes among different groups or whether this reflects differential treatment by the criminal justice system. Studies show that the answer here is both. Certain groups are in fact more likely to commit crimes than others because crime is linked to patterns of inequality in the United States. However, the process of prosecution in the criminal justice system is also significantly related to patterns of race, class, and gender inequality. We see this in the official arrest statistics, in treatment by the police, in sentencing patterns, and in studies of imprisonment.

References

BarCharts, Inc. (2000). Sociology: The Basic Principles of Sociology for Introductory Courses. Boca Raton, FL: Bar Charts, Inc.

Andersen, M.L. and Taylor, H.F. (2009). Sociology: The Essentials. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

See original here:

Types of Crimes - About Sociology - About.com Education

alibay19 Post 10

If bigamy, gambling, ticket scalping, riding bike without a helmet and if possible having sexual intercourse without marrying each other is a victimless crime, how can all this be explained?

Although it is believed that religion is the opium of the masses, I still believe that sentencing prostitutes and drug users is a very good idea.

What I don't understand is how the prosecutor has standing in victimless crimes regarding the doctrine of Corpus delicti.

If the doctrine of Corpus delecti requires (rightly IMO) that "1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some intentional, knowing act as the source of the injury.", then how does the prosecutor establish standing without a plausible victim.

Regarding Donald Bales assertions, that reasoning could be used to establish an all-pervasive totalitarian state that dictates the diets of all citizens, i.e., if the government can tell citizens what drugs they can use on the grounds that some drugs are injurious to public health, then they should also be able to tell everyone how much salt, fat, sugar etc each person is permitted to eat. Eating too much ice cream should carry an equal or greater sentence than smoking pot, because ice cream is quite demonstrably worse for one's health.

How does a court acquire jurisdiction without an injury? There is case after case stating that an injury is a requirement for standing or corpus delicti.

Great article/definition Michael!

While I don't smoke marijuana/hemp, I just don't see (Constitutionally) how government can outlaw a plant.

It's not manufactured like other drugs; it's grown then dried (as far as I know). If the government just decriminalized this one "drug", not only would it significantly reduce prison population and take pressure off of the judicial system, but it could again be manufactured for rope, clothes, fuel, paper, etc. (an estimated 50,000 products!) Of course the one manufactured is slightly different from the one smoked (lower THC?) but law enforcement can't readily tell the difference so it's all outlawed.

@mani65ng and Diwiyana: A victim is a person who is directly injured, destroyed, sacrificed, harmed, duped, mistreated, or oppressed by

@anon32602: Again you aren't directly harmed by the people who use the ER; you are directly harmed by an agent (the government). It is the government that makes you a victim via unconstitutional agencies, laws, and statutes. Health care was better before the government got involved and it's possible for it to be again, but not probable because of all the sheeple who don't understand the Constitution, government's role, economics, etc.

Now that emergency care in ER's and admission to hospital is also mandated, behaviors that would seem to impact only the individual have to be viewed in a somewhat different way. Granted that alcohol or drug use or smoking do not harm me directly, still I will be forced to pay for the consequences of these personal acts but my tax dollars and by the increase in my health insurance premiums. So, in a sense, I become the victim (am harmed) by the acts of other individuals. A government that undertakes to provide cradle to grave care will inevitably be led to regulate the behavior of individuals who cause increased costs.

If the government doesn't ask for it, citizens who

Some think that there should never be any bad consequences for bad behavior. That conflicts with the laws of nature-and nature will win every time.

Donald W. Bales

Prostitution unless spread by a criminal syndicate should not be criminalized but is in most all US states because we are a theocracy, not a democracy and have been controlled by religious tenets in blatant violation of our constitution (and it matters *not* that the silly word "God" appears in our bill of rights) as the already established theocracy demanded it: we are no different in *this* respect from Islamic regimes as in all theocracies, the last word is always the domain of a religious tyrant( priest rabbi. Imam, pastor-you name the miscreant- it matters little because these monsters are the criminals who enslave us insidiously and then abuse us one way or another. Our schools zero tolerance policy

criminalize an 81 Mgs aspirin exactly like a reefer. In reality neither is but academic stupidity certainly is and the school boards that dictate that sort of policy should be channeled to a maximum security prison as a temporary holding facility until we reopen Alcatraz where all prisoners will be put to hard labor for life, not less: control freaks are dictators who should not be allowed the freedom of criminalizing medicines. Control freaks are criminals who manage to pass a rule that paralyzes others.

Good definition! Of course, in arguments over whether or not a particular law should be removed from the books, people disagree about which crimes really are victimless. Some feminists, for example, argue that the prostitute actually is the victim of prostitution, even though she seems to be agreeing to the sex-for-money contract of her own free will. She presumably wouldn't do it if she had other options. I don't know how many actual prostitutes have been surveyed for their opinions on the topic, though. Lots of convicted criminals also like to argue that their victims really wanted to be victims and so weren't truly victims anyway.

How are there no victims in victimless crimes?

Read more from the original source:

What is a Victimless Crime? (with pictures) - wiseGEEK