Victimless Crimes

[Warik]

If there is no victim, how is there a crime?

* Prostitution
* Anabolic Steroids
* Gambling
* Marijuana
* Using your Cell Phone while driving assuming you are competent enough to talk and drive safely (i.e. me and many other Americans)
* Having a glass of champagne or another alcoholic beverage in the privacy of your own home (before you turn/turned 21)

I don't understand.

How did we let this happen to our country?

-Warik

 

[BigDdaGanjalist]

You got me there.

The gov't should review these "victimless crimes" and squash it. . . would save taxpayers money

 

[Kakdiesel]

Honestly, it all goes back to the religous/moral aspect of our government...christian coalition is a huge power in congress even today in 2001..

 

[rushx79]

our fine country was basically founded by a bunch of uptight puritans. change will come, but it will occur slowly.

 

[NinjaX]

Im stumped!!

 

[WODIN]

Here is how it happened. Various people who couldn't control there consumption of these various items had a spill over effect into the general population. IE Driving Under the Influence...in other words, it is simply a case of a handful of assholes ruining it for everyone else who want's to occasionally and responsibly enjoy these things.

 

[absolute hardgainer]

Prostitution is NOT a victimless crime.

Prostitutes are victims. Many are forced into prostitution by pimps, drug dealers and even abusive family members. Many prostitutes have experienced sexual assault and are continually degraded and humiliated in their situation.

To say that prostitution is a victimless crime is turning a blind eye to the awful lives and situation of most sexworkers.

As for smoking marijuana, using AS or drinking - I agree they are victimless crimes and the law should butt out of people's private lives here.

I don't think gambling is a victimless crimes, I had a good friend who was a chronic gambler and wasted his whole life on it.

hardgainer (my two cents)

 

[Warik]

Prostitution is NOT a victimless crime.

As for smoking marijuana, using AS or drinking - I agree they are victimless crimes and the law should butt out of people's private lives here.

A prostitute has just as much power to not be a prostitute as a marijuana smoker/AS user has to not smoke marijuana or use AS. We must understand the fundamental law that no one can "make" another do anything without his or her consent.

The only victim in regard to prostitution is anyone who catches an STD, which would be THAT PERSON'S fault for being irresponsible.

I don't think gambling is a victimless crimes, I had a good friend who was a chronic gambler and wasted his whole life on it.

Who obligated your friend to gamble? It was his choice.

Our government is prohibiting us from making choices of what to do with our money, our bodies, and our lives.

(Note: Before any pro-choicers start whining, abortion is not a victimless crime (unfortunately, it's not a crime at all). The fetus dies. Say hello to victim. Please refrain from bringing up the silly "woman's choice" foolishness.)

-Warik

 

[RyanH]

If there is no victim, how is there a crime?

* Prostitution
* Anabolic Steroids
* Gambling
* Marijuana
* Using your Cell Phone while driving assuming you are competent enough to talk and drive safely (i.e. me and many other Americans)
* Having a glass of champagne or another alcoholic beverage in the privacy of your own home (before you turn/turned 21)

I don't understand.

How did we let this happen to our country?

-Warik

Agreed. All are victimless with the exception of cell phones and driving. The fact is that most people cannot drive and manage a cell phone very well. I've been witness to it, several times.....

 

[FrankRizzo]

Warik - I couldn't agree with you more. I think the only thing that will change this will be that revolution you were talkin about.

 

[john937]

One of the European countries, (I beleive Sweden or Netherlands) decriminalized heroin.
The police were outraged and warned everyone it was the begining of the end.
But 6 months later even the police chief was in favor of it.
Heroin addiction simply became an issue between the person and their doctor.
Since they could now get their drug legally, it was much cheaper and cleaner and well dosed.
Overdoses, burglary, STD's prostitution, etc... all forms of crime went WAY down.

 

[FrankRizzo]

YYYEEEEEESSSSSS!!!! Please everyone read the above post about what happened once heroin was legalized. And this was HEROIN. Not harmless old marijuana. Don't let the government spoon feed you bullshit all the while they are pocketing huge bucks from alcohol companies.

 

[Weapon X]

I agree, Warik.

 

[Warik]

Re: Re: Victimless Crimes

Agreed. All are victimless with the exception of cell phones and driving. The fact is that most people cannot drive and manage a cell phone very well. I've been witness to it, several times.....

Correct... but notice the subject of this post: "Victimless Crimes."

Is it a crime (which results in damages against another human being) to operate an automobile while using a cell phone?

I was speaking with my mom on my cellphone today while driving my car, and no, I was not using a headset - I was holding the phone with my right hand. Did it impede my ability to control the automobile or pay attention to what I was doing? No. Was anyone physically hurt by my actions? No.

How many of you adjust the air conditioning or the radio while driving? Adjust the rear-view mirror? Side mirrors? Talk to your passengers? That's just as dangerous, if not more so, than talking on a cell phone. You don't have to take your eyes off the road to talk, but most people glance at the radio in order to push the right buttons.

By the way, the fact that "Agreed" is the first word in your reply truly warms my heart. Maybe there is hope for you yet. =)

-Warik

 

[Warik]

The hands of time have brought you here
to make a change, to break down the walls
You are the ones and you are the only
trying to live by your own goals

AND YOU ALL CRY FOR FREEDOM
RAISE YOUR FISTS TO THE SKY


"Templars of Steel" - Hammerfall

-Warik

 

[danielson]

how many out there would 'think' they were in control of the car, even though they were not. then they hit someone. that rule is out there to stop deaths, and its only a minor ionconvieniece to u.

government run brothels would test for STD's and stop women being forced into prostitution. if that happened id have no qualms. it does in germnay. if a city is over a certain sizze it has to have one, by law!

 

[Warik]

how many out there would 'think' they were in control of the car, even though they were not. then they hit someone. that rule is out there to stop deaths, and its only a minor ionconvieniece to u.

Adjusting radios or air conditioning in the car is just as dangerous as talking on a cellphone. Should we ban that too?

government run brothels would test for STD's and stop women being forced into prostitution. if that happened id have no qualms. it does in germnay. if a city is over a certain sizze it has to have one, by law!

More proof that "The Land of the Free" is nothing more than a catchy phrase.

-Warik

 

[Weapon X]

Adjusting radios or air conditioning in the car is just as dangerous as talking on a cellphone. Should we ban that too?

Same thing with putting on make-up, masturbating, and eating a happy meal. But we don't ban those things while driving!

 

[danielson]

if u adjust the A/C its a momentary distraction.

a phone call can last for hours

its a weak defense i know. but i still maintain some yuppie will think he knows best by driving on a road for hours with a mobile. though the punishment is onlyh a pulling over and being told to stop. over here anyhow.

 

[Warik]

Actually, some states/cities have passed laws that let them fine drivers now. It's getting ridiculous.

And what's wrong with a "yuppie" talking on the celphone for hours in the car if he is able to drive just as effectively as he can without one? My friend often talks to me for the entire half hour-45 minutes it takes him to get home from work, and another friend talked to me once for an hour on the highway on his way to New Jersey.

It's another victimless crime.

-Warik

 

[Laserdude]

I am with Warik on this one. The cell debate is a waste of time. After all, the first amendment says we have the right of freespeech.

Now the government is another thing. The "victimless crime" is a fiction of the imagination of a politician's mind.

They come up to the bat to see if they can get anyone to warm up to there opnion on there "debate." Now debates are supposed to get people fired up on a subject, any subject. So if we leave these issues to politicians we will loose all the way. That is how they work the crowd. Just like a ring master at a circus.

Now we are not dumb animals, are we? Wake the fuck up people you run the country not the other way around. VOTE or DIE!!!! Maybe then the powers that be realize that we won't take there b.s. anymore.

Lock and load, it is the only way to end this mess, that the politicians will respect.

 

[Warik]

I think representation in the House should be determined by the number of voters in the state as opposed to the state's population.

Think of a largely populated state in which the total number of people who voted in the last election was barely a fraction of its population.

Do you know this state? If you guessed Kalifornia - you're right! Kalifornia has too much representation.

-Warik

 

[nycdefender]

Warik, anyone from Miami, Florida has no business demanding that representation in the House should by be registered voters. Seems Miami and the rest of Florida had a ton of problems not so long ago

I do, however, agree with the original premise about victimless crimes. If what you do privately does not harm anyone else or infringe on anyone else's rights, it should not be criminalized.

 

[Warik]

Warik, anyone from Miami, Florida has no business demanding that representation in the House should by be registered voters.

nycdefender, anyone from Anywhere, New York has no business saying anything about anyone from Miami, Florida. We didn't elect Hillary.

-Warik

 

[absolute hardgainer]

Warik, et al:

I very strongly disagree that prostitution is a victimless crime. To say that a prostitute has as much power not to be a prostitute as a marijuana smoker has not to smoke marijuana is totally wrong for the following reasons:

Prostitutes are mostly forced or pressured into prostitution by pimps, drug dealers (who exploit their drug dependencies) or their extreme social and economic situations. Society gives many poor women no other choice to earn a sustainable living other than going into prostitution. This allows women to be sexually exploited as a way of default - if a woman is unable to support herself and/or her children she is forced into the only profession that makes her enough money to do so.

A prostitute does not consent to having sex when she is working. She is forced to consent to having sex because of her situation, she has no choice. Taking advantage of a prostitute is one step up from outright sexual abuse.

hardgainer (saying it like it is)

 

[Warik]

It's called: "No." Not my problem if they can't say it.

Rape is a crime - prostitution is not.

-Warik

 

[danielson]

its mostly eastern european women who get foprced into into after immegrating here. more reason to have government or independantly organised checks.

 

[Fonz]

A prostitute has just as much power to not be a prostitute as a marijuana smoker/AS user has to not smoke marijuana or use AS. We must understand the fundamental law that no one can "make" another do anything without his or her consent.

The only victim in regard to prostitution is anyone who catches an STD, which would be THAT PERSON'S fault for being irresponsible.



Who obligated your friend to gamble? It was his choice.

Our government is prohibiting us from making choices of what to do with our money, our bodies, and our lives.

(Note: Before any pro-choicers start whining, abortion is not a victimless crime (unfortunately, it's not a crime at all). The fetus dies. Say hello to victim. Please refrain from bringing up the silly "woman's choice" foolishness.)

-Warik

Warik, I was about to agree with you until I saw your stance on
Abortion......LOL
Its obvious you're not very enlightened when it comes to the
medical field.(No offense meant, just an observation)

The question is: Is the fetus sentient?

A fetus becomes sentient WHEN its DEPENDENCY
on the mother stops. In theory, its the SMALLEST
amount of time a fetus can gestate before being
able to be removed from the mother and be able to survive
on its own.
The mother-fetus relationship is parasitical in nature.
"good" parasitical that is, BUT nevertheless parasitical.

At this time, the fetus has enough control over its
autonomic functions to FULLY function as
a separate entity.

This time is around 7-8 weeks in most cases.

Abortion during this time CAUSES no harm on the
the fetus because it is a PARASITE. Pure and simple.

After those 7-8 weeks are transpired, the fetus becomes a living
sentient being, and therefore abortion is to be SERIOUSLY
looked upon as murder EXCEPT when the mother is
in jeopardy due to pregnancy complications.
The safety of the mother takes precedence ALWAYS.

Godspeed

 

[nycdefender]

Warik, et al:

I very strongly disagree that prostitution is a victimless crime.
Prostitutes are mostly forced or pressured into prostitution by pimps, drug dealers (who exploit their drug dependencies) or their extreme social and economic situations. Society gives many poor women no other choice to earn a sustainable living other than going into prostitution. This allows women to be sexually exploited as a way of default - if a woman is unable to support herself and/or her children she is forced into the only profession that makes her enough money to do so.

A prostitute does not consent to having sex when she is working. She is forced to consent to having sex because of her situation, she has no choice. Taking advantage of a prostitute is one step up from outright sexual abuse.

I appreciate your views on why women (and men) turn to prostitution. All of the above is correct, but I would temper the statement that "he is forced to consent . . .because of her situation; she has no choice." I would disagree. Every prostitute has a choice, although many of the options may be unattractive. I have represented many prostitutes in court. Some do seek alternate economic paths, and some prostitutes prefer prostitution for the easy money. No one can be "forced to consent." Either you consent or you don't. But you are right in saying that economics certainly limits their choices.

I think prostiution should be legalized, not because it is a so-called victimless crime, but because prostitution could be regulated if decriminalized. As odd as it may sound, prostitutes could unionize and obtain protections to which they are not currently entitled. Plus, if a prostitute is victimized (her/his john goes too far), then they could report the crime to the police without fear of reprisal of being a prostitute.

Warik, New York had no choice but to elect Hillary over a political imp, such as Lazzio.

 

[musclebrains]

I agree with NYC. The problems with prostitution hardgainer is citing are largely the result of operating within an illegal culture. I'll spare you the argument about the special needs of women who undertake renegade lifestyles inside a patriarchal dominant culture.

 

[Warik]

Warik, New York had no choice but to elect Hillary over a political imp, such as Lazzio.

If New York had any sense, it wouldn't have voted for anyone. Who wins in a 0 - 0 tie??? =)

-Warik

 

[danielson]

they only abort at the blastocyte stage or before, which is before the 100 or so cells become an embryo of sorts, so unless someone will tell me cells are sentient, cells die everyday including sperm, so the arguement becomes more philosophical

 

[chillin408]

Absolute, In reponse to your last post. From your point of view, If prostition is Not victemless , then many other legal activities people engage in are also victimless.

For example, I'm sure you alot of people have those guys in your neighborhood who are considered "players" and "pimps" by their peers. Alot of them legally have relations with a numerous amount of woman, all during the same time period. Most of these woman think they are the only one. In realilty, they are just another of the females these guys use for shelter, money, and sex,etc.. Unlike prostition, this is all legal.
Usually, these guys are not attracted to that female, but only use them, thats it. The female is a victim, but thats not my problem, and I wouldn't want to pay dollars to stop an activity like this.

Also, in many of these cases, the female knows there is other females her "boyfriend" is see'ing, but she doesn't want to believe it. Because of that, she gets deeper into the relationship. In a way, shes addicted. So, you can say she is a victim of "mad game".

When these prostitutes are forced into prostition they are "victims of game". So in both cases, you have victims. One is legal, one isn't.

There are alot of other examples including..stripppers and escorts. Also, those females that act like they are attracted to these guys with nice cars and then just use them for money. They will be in the relationship as long as the guy keeps buying her goods, like expensive clothes and jewerly. If he stops, then there goes the relationship,and the "ass" hes getting.

If a prostitution ever becomes legalized under the same business rules that exist today, then those prostitutes cannot discriminate against looks,body composition, ethnicity, or gender. Just like all other legal business operations right???

Or maybe their are some rules, because I never see too many male secretaries, or male babysitters. I'm not familar with the rules, so that may be a little off.

 

[absolute hardgainer]

Just an afternote:

I do believe that prostitution is not a victimless crime and that prostitutes are victims in their situation.

But I am not in favour of criminalizing prostitution, since this has always hurt prostitutes more than anyone else. It also gives police and prostitutes clients more undue power and opportunity to abuse prostitutes.

hardgainer (just clearing that up)

 

[Immortal Juicer]

it should all be legal...

Any time there is inelastic demand for a good or service, making it illegal is only asking for major problems. If prostitution was legal, they prostitutes would be able to make money, get the help they need, and pay the government taxes. Most importantly, they would be safe. We could spend the money we save on law enforcement, as well as the money from prostitutes taxes, on treatment and prevention.

The only reason violence is related to drugs is because they are illegal, not because they are "bad." If someone sells you $5000 worth of fake juice, you cannot report them to the better business bureau and file a lawsuit against them in an attempt to get your money back. How do you get your money back?

Anyone with a decent level of intelligence can understand why it is in place and why it doesnt work at all.