Victimless Crimes

[Guest Julius Quasar]

In this thread, we're here to talk about Krystal's belly-button victimless crimes (oops!) 

What is a victimless crime?

It is seen as a crime that harms no one, not even the person committing said crime. 

Carrying a weapon concealed without a permit?  Victimless Crime, as long as no one was actually hurt or killed. 

Loitering?  Victimless Crime.   

Sleeping in the park? Victimless Crime

Stealing cable?  Technically not a victimless crime, it can ruin other people's reception

Shoplifting?  While good for a laugh, especially when it happens to a big box type store or those Macy's pricks, it's still not a victimless crime

Parking in the handicapped zone while not handicapped? NOT a victimless crime, handicapped folks DO need those spaces.

What do you think makes for victimless crimes or NOT a victimless crimes, and why?

[Sabre]

Carrying a weapon concealed without a permit?  Victimless Crime, as long as no one was actually hurt or killed.

Loitering?  Victimless Crime. 

Sleeping in the park? Victimless Crime

The issue here is much like legalising drugs, the idealism and reality are at odds. Ideally these are fine. In practice people carry hidden weapons with the intent to harm someone rather then for defence, loiters tend to cause trouble, as do people sleeping in public places.

Parking in the handicapped zone while not handicapped? NOT a victimless crime, handicapped folks DO need those spaces.

Forcing companies to have these things are an issue as the number of spaces tends to be disproportionate. Therefor, I don't see a problem taking them as long as there is at least 1 or 2 left. In Switzerland, it is seen as polite to park far away if you are early, the idea being that those who are in a hurry or handicapped will need the closer spaces, but that's not the culture here.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

In practice people carry hidden weapons with the intent to harm someone rather then for defence, loiters tend to cause trouble, as do people sleeping in public places.

No, not always.  But that's a matter of [your] opinion. 

Possession of narcotics: Victimless Crime (as long as you don't intend to distribute it or slip it into someone's food or drink)

[Sabre]

No, not always.  But that's a matter of [your] opinion. 

Possession of narcotics: Victimless Crime (as long as you don't intend to distribute it or slip it into someone's food or drink)

See, that's the problem. "As long as". Loitering is fine 'as long as' you don't start threataining people and smashing up the place, which often happens.

["User"]

I'm in agreement with Sabre here, there is a reason why a lot these things are illegal, even if there isn't a victim "right then and there".  The possible cons in a lot of these cases (like riding a motorcycle without a helmet in Canada) far outweigh any potential pros.  Not only would you have someone seriously hurt, but the cost in health care for the government (tax-payer funded health care) would be quite high.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

I'm in agreement with Sabre here, there is a reason why a lot these things are illegal, even if there isn't a victim "right then and there".  The possible cons in a lot of these cases (like riding a motorcycle without a helmet in Canada) far outweigh any potential pros.  Not only would you have someone seriously hurt, but the cost in health care for the government (tax-payer funded health care) would be quite high.

The motorcycle thing is definitely NOT a victimless crime, after all, there is..."an accident victim" But in seriousness, yeah, the victims would be the health care section of the gov't and the taxpayers having to foot the bill for that asshole who won't wear a helmet.

["User"]

The motorcycle thing is definitely NOT a victimless crime, after all, there is..."an accident victim"

It would be a victimless crime the vast majority of the time since almost all the trips taken without a helmet wouldn't result in injury, just like the odds of someone getting hurt while carrying a concealed weapon is is virtually nil.