Victimless Crime Vs Social Order Crime

"A stoner ain't much of a criminal. Weed users are likely to forget random stuff, eat junk food or be apathetic students/workers, but nothing especially worth mentioning." - Savage Heathen

Actually, I would say the extent of even that is probably exaggerated, especially the latter. (Hell, I wouldn't be too surprised if the latter was in the direction opposite from truth; I don't smoke weed, but I know people who smoke weed and yet are much better students than I am.)

See, the problem isn't with "legislating against crimes that don't directly involve victims." The problem is with determining just what these crimes have to do with ones that involve victims.

Seriously how can you consent to be murdered?

hashtagsarestupid

You might if you live in Germany.

Hodor

Why wouldn't you be able to consent to death?

You own your own life. You can dispose of it, or delegate such a decision if you want.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

@Heathen- The general idea behind not being able to do just that is that anyone who would consent to being killed isn't in the state of mind for a contract or their consent to be binding.

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

That's nonsense! You own yourself, no ifs or buts. In fact, I'd make the age of majority even earlier.

Self-ownership is a big deal. It's the axiom over which any meaningful morality or political philosophy stands.

The alternative is to consider that people are chattel whose lives are owned by the State, or society, or an equivalent boogeyman. People being deprived of the most fundamental right (liberty) for their own good is plainly Orwellian.

edited 17th Apr '11 3:27:35 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I agree that in theory people should be able to agree to be murdered but also that in practice nobody who would actually do so is in a state of mind where their consent reflects their actual opinion at all.

There's a reason we don't let drunk people or crazy people sign contracts, after all.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

It would be appropriate to use a term other than murder to describe the circumstances which you're positing, namely ones of consenting to being killed.

I am afraid at age 15 they are still kids. Just as young and dumb as they were at 10. Most folks are still that way at 21. We covered this in another thread somewhere else but I can't recall what it was called.

Savage: It is all well and good if it is done at home but if it is done in public that is involving others who may not want that involvement. What about those situations. Ever had a random stoner think your suddenly a leaning post? Or those charming public drunks who fumble and run into people. Not technically hurting anyone in those cases but they are involving others possibly involuntarily in their choices.

edited 17th Apr '11 3:39:53 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

"in practice nobody who would actually do so is in a state of mind where their consent reflects their actual opinion at all"

That's mighty presumptuous! I guess euthanasia's off the table, then.

Enjoy the Inferno...

Driving is riskier than, say, smoking a spliff or having sex. We let people drive at 16.

Why not vote, sign contracts, have validly consenxual sex with whomever they choose, drink and generally be masters of their own lives? Most civilized countries have 18 as the age of majority for everything and give much more freedom to people between 16 and 18.

@Black Humor: Crazy or drunk people cannot sign enforceable contracts: They've got a right to void such compromises once they're sane or sober. However, they can and do give consent for stuff.

What I'm getting at: There is a different between giving consent and signing an enforceable contract.

edited 17th Apr '11 3:46:42 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Even at 16, there are still restrictions on driving. IIRC, down here you can't drive between the hours of 11PM and 5AM until you turn 18, for instance*

. And we do let people have sex at 16, depending on what state you're in. Here, it's 17.

As for consent while intoxicated- while it's true they a person can consent while drunk, said consent is still meaningless in the eyes of the law. More importantly, barring a huge leap in medical technology, you can't stop being dead and revoke your consent.

edited 17th Apr '11 3:56:54 PM by Wulf

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

So? I think not being able to revoke your consent after the fact is a pretty typical thing. You can't, for example, have sex with someone, then decide the next day you didn't want to and then claim they raped you because you now revoke consent.

That would depend on the degree of drunkenness.

Barely capable of speaking or moving drunk is quite different fromn reckless and impulsive drunk.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I believe those are the curfew hours, which is the reason for the restrictions. It's not so much driving as not supposed to be out.

Though there are exceptions, and other restrictions. Like some places the first 6 months of driving you can't drive after Sunset, or with more than a certain number of passengers.

@Zoulza Indeed you can't, but that was in response to drunk or insane people being able to void a contract or compromise they made while drunk or insane. If you're in the state of mind in which you'd consent to being killed, one many(most?) people believe is one that invalidates any contract you'd make, you can't change your mind after you're out of that state like you can in those two cases

EDIT:@Savage Heathen- Indeed, although it's up to the jury in the subsequent trial to determine exactly where the line between those is.

@blue- It's possible, although as far as I know, we don't have a curfew around here. We might, but if we do, it doesn't matter to me anymore.

edited 17th Apr '11 4:08:05 PM by Wulf

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

Was gonna say sex at 17 is legal in my state. Vote at 15-16 umm no. They can wait until they are 18. I wouldn't mind shifting everything to age 18 to be honest. Drinking and all.

You still haven't touched on people under the influence involving others in their actions involuntarily. What would you say? Personally as long as it is in your own private space ie where you live that it is pretty much your business. But once your no longer in your yard/house what ever or projecting your behavior beyond your space that is not acceptable.

Who watches the watchmen?

The IT crowd do a spot on take on people who see nothing wrong with consensual homicide such as Savage Heathen at 15:40.

edited 17th Apr '11 4:11:21 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

@Teufel: On your space, or on a consenting party's space, yea. Involving no non-consenting parties. Yea.

If those two criteria are met, ANY activity (no matter how bizarre or disturbing) should be legal.

edited 17th Apr '11 4:19:16 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I would be perfectly cool with that then. I forgot about the consenting others part though. But still yeah that would be fine.

Who watches the watchmen?

I think society does has to right to set reasonable limits to personal freedoms, I can't think of anything that I would want should be able to ban providing the above was meet but.

edited 17th Apr '11 5:58:48 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

@MRDA: Regarding euthanasia, I'm okay with it if there is a document signed before the fact and written in a clear state of mind that if X should ever happen they are okay with dying. However I can't see it becoming law except for terminal cases.

Eh, barring it does not negatively effect the neighbors and it doesn't set out to cause grievous bodily harm, sure why not?

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Victim-based crimes are easy (sexual assault, assault, murder, theft, fraud, money laundering etc), we use a combination of jail time, fines and rehabilitation to correct that.

Victimless crimes where there is no clear indication of anybody being hurt, we can probably just drop it. If they're bad behaviour, we replace with education. This would things such as drug abuse (the most prominent example is marijuana, which is best combated with an anti-smoking campaign). Things such as suicide, we would provide psychological support.

Then you get into the half-victimless crimes. This is like prostitution where the act is consensual but the prostitute may not exactly be going into the profession because it is their life long dream but because society took a dump on them and now they work this really crappy job. The act itself shouldn't be made illegal and again, it's likely more profitable to attack the base problem (such as poverty, lack of education, low job opportunity, low business investment in the area, poor infrastructure) rather than just making it illegal. Throwing hoes into jail isn't really going to help society much.