Victimless crime

A victimless crime is behavior of an individual which is forbidden by law, but which neither violates nor significantly threatens the rights of other individuals. Victimless crimes are typically considered immoral or to violate public decency, and include public drunkenness, vagrancy and public nudity. Controversy about the applicability of the term usually surrounds the issue of whether a victim exists either directly, such as the individual, or indirectly, such as society as a whole. Arguably, all consensual crime, when performed by or with an individual who has the ability to consent, is victimless, as the rights of a participating individual are relinquished on consenting to such an action. Victimless and consensual crimes are also known as public order crimes.

This class of crime typically applies to adults, in contrast to minors, who have not yet reached the age of consent. For example, an adult selling drugs or sex to another adult may be seen as a victimless crime, but selling drugs or sex to a minor may not be considered to be victimless, as the minor is not legally able to consent. Debate exists surrounding how accurately the legal age of consent reflects the true age at which individuals are intellectually capable of informed consent. Where individuals are mentally capable of informed consent, but have not yet reached the legal age of consent, certain crimes may be considered victimless.

Determining a victim

Victims can emerge in the form of the individual who committed the act, close family members and friends, society as a whole, public goods and resources, unintended third parties and more. Determining a victim as a result of a certain action is the cause of debate since a victim is not easily traced back to the initial action. Many times, an action is banned because of the potential for a victim, such as driving without automobile insurance.

Examples

Sex crimes (or Crimes against chastity) and crimes related to reproduction

• Adultery and, in general, sex outside marriage where all those involved, including spouses, give consent - Adultery without the spouse's consent is arguably not victimless, as it violates the spouse's marriage contract rights, but it is also arguable that the non-consenting spouse is the victim of a civil wrong, instead of a criminal wrong.
• Bigamy and other non-traditional marital and family practices
• Child pornography without child actors, such as lolicon
• Consensual sex between a minor and an adult (see age of consent)
• Homosexuality, or other sexual activities not strictly related with biological reproduction
• Human reproduction which lies outside of ordinary methods: chemical or genetic interventions; birth control, which is illegal in many places; human cloning and other reproductive technologies.
• Incest which cannot result in pregnancy.
• Pornography (viewing, production, trade, possession, consumption) and other obscenity when produced involving consenting participants, and distributed to consenting purchasers
• Pornography that does not feature consenting adults but the viewing does not encourage the producer to make more
• Prostitution, sex work, and related acts
• Sadomasochism and BDSM-related, consensual, erotic activities
• Necrophilia

Religion

• Apostasy
• Blasphemy
• Practice of religion, cult or superstition other than those locally sanctioned
• Religious practices involving banned substances (such as hallucinogens) or banned social arrangements (such as polygamy)

Financial

• Ticket scalping
• Illegal taxicab operation

Political

In general, most political crimes are victimless, as they, by definition, are against the politic body.

• Electoral fraud, where such fraud does not involve the votes of specific persons
• Flag desecration or expressing negative opinion of prominent national figure (e.g. Turkey, North Korea)
• High crimes and misdemeanors, and other abuses of political power that do not involve specific persons
• Public obscenity, through offense to others
• Treason

Self-preservation and public safety

• BASE jumping under certain conditions
• Black market trade, or trade in unapproved products or unlicensed services to willing and fully-informed buyers
• Consented cannibalism
• Driving a car without state-mandated auto insurance, though financial damage to others is possible
• Operating an automobile without a driver's license.
• Having an open container of an alcoholic beverage in a moving vehicle
• Jaywalking
• Laws requiring the use of safety devices such as seat belts and motorcycle helmets - Acquiring the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways arguably includes consent to obey the rules of the road, but such violations are debatably in breach of contract, and not victimless. Violating such laws can lead to the injury of the violator only, who has consented to the possibility of such injury by the act of violation, and thus, such violations do not endanger others; however, at high speeds, the human body can become a dangerous projectile and a hazard to others.
• Many forms of gambling
• Possession and use of fireworks and firecrackers
• Possession of devices that may be used in committing crimes, such as weapons, unauthorized cable TV decoders, or cryptographic products (the likelihood that the device will be used to harm others is relevant in determining whether possession constitutes a significant threat to the rights of others; an extreme example is possession of a nuclear weapon by a civilian)
• Sedition
• Subverting the national culture (e.g. by using certain foreign or minority languages)
• Suicide, attempted suicide, euthanasia and automutilation
• Trespassing in the context of urban exploration
• Untreated insanity
• Use of illegal drugs, including alcohol in some jurisdictions

Copyright, trade marks and trade

• Bypassing region encoding used for price differentiation on DVDs and other media
• Copying goods that will not legally be sold in one's market within a human lifetime
• Grey market transactions that do not involve copyright/trademark infringement (e.g. importing a video game console or decrypting a foreign satellite signal without permission)
• Phreaking
• Reality hacking

Crimes in potentia

• conspiracy to commit crimes at some point in the future

Proponents for reform

In general, social libertarianism maintains that laws banning victimless acts have no rational or moral reason for existing and should be abolished. It also asserts that the harm caused by the prevention of these activities is often far greater than any harm caused by the activities themselves, and would justify repeal of these laws on the same harm reduction grounds that were originally used to justify them.

Individual freedom

Advocates for the removal of victimless crime laws believe in the inherent freedom of individuals. According to this principle, individuals have the right to partake in any actions they choose, as long as these actions do not impede on the rights of others, even if the actions could be considered detrimental to that person. In this case, the government should not be allowed to regulate the actions of people unless they affect other people as well. These views are based on libertarian philosophies such as self-ownership, the Zero Aggression Principle, and individualist anarchism.

Economic effects

Proponents of reform argue that removal of these laws would be a profit to the economy, citing figures in excess of $200 billion. They also argue that fewer people in prison for these crimes would boost the workforce, as well as reduce the reliance on correctional facilities and allow police the opportunity to focus on the remaining crimes.

They also claim that laws against these crimes may have unintended consequences that are the reverse of that intended: for example, the War on Drugs puts the distribution of illegal drugs into the hands of criminals, and creates artificial scarcity, making their distribution highly profitable. At the same time, it fails to completely prevent the activities it was intended to prevent. The criminal underworlds often created by laws against consensual crimes mean that a subculture comes into existence for whom police are an enemy, who cannot rely on law, and who often adhere to a violent code of honor. These traits discourage respect for property, encourage violence and revenge, and depress the economy of the areas in which they operate .

Proponents of status quo

Advocates for the retention of victimless crime laws believe in keeping these laws for the good of society as well as for the good of the perpetrator of the crime.

Good of society

Much legislation is carried out on the principle that it will benefit the community as a whole. They may consider that the direct harm of the activity in question is so great that the people involved need to be protected against their own actions, regardless of their desires.

For example, addictive behavior, such as drug use or gambling, may cause a person to be less effective in the workplace, increase insurance costs, or may have adverse effects on relationships with family or friends, which could be effected harmful enough to be considered victims. Similarly, laws mandating the use of seat belts are argued to save considerable amounts of death and serious injury, thus offering a net benefit to society, since treating the injured and supporting the families of the injured or dead has a cost for insurance or social security systems paid for by the general population.

Restriction of these acts can be linked to preserving morality in the community at large or to preventing an offense against God through so-called licentious or blasphemous acts. This is rooted in the custom of a religion, moral code or social code being used as the basis for laws. Such arguments are often disputed in secular societies.

Similarly, while an activity in an ideal, theoretical state may be victimless, most or all of its practical incarnations generate situations in which many are victimized. For example, prostitution is in theory a simple transaction where money is traded for sex; however, the history of prostitution involves countless accounts of coercion and violence within the trade.

Good of the individual

Laws stemming from the good of the individual are based on the principle that an individual should never be involved in certain activities that are potentially harmful to him. They argue that because the harm done to a person by some activities is so great, it is better to simply make these activities illegal. For instance, a person's health and economic well-being can be harmed by using an illegal substance so much as to destroy any potential that person had and render them dead to the world, compelling caring individuals to spend so many resources attempting to help them, that it is better to make the usage of it illegal.

From a religious standpoint, the viewing of pornography or use of prostitutes are sins and immoral. Therefore, in an attempt to save the souls of persons that would commit these sins, these acts could be made illegal.

Some laws arise (ostensibly) to protect minors, such as statutory rape, restrictions on violent and obscene content in the media, and limitations on tobacco and alcohol use. These laws argue that youth do not have the reasoning capabilities to fully understand their actions and should therefore be prohibited from these actions until a certain age, even if those prohibitions create a hindrance for adults as well.

Specific arguments

See also: Public order crime case law in the United States

It has been argued that suicide, euthanasia, or taking mentally-debilitating drugs should not be against the law. This view holds that if the death or the drug-induced incapacity of a person works to the detriment of others then the act should still be a crime because it affects others adversely. Banning these acts excuses an "exit" from life entirely, or from one's responsibilities, which is believed to be immoral. For example, if a subway motorman commits suicide while on duty, and lets the train crash, resulting in injuries or deaths to others, then such an act should be made illegal. This act might not just be considered suicide, but also dereliction of duty.

If a person takes drugs (like cocaine or cannabis) but does not directly harm another, it is often argued that this action has no victim and thus should be legalized. Some also suggest that driving a car while intoxicated should not be a crime unless it can be shown that the vehicle operator's skills were impaired to the detriment of others. Some governments have legislated blood alcohol levels beyond which a person is considered to be driving while impaired. Disagreement arises over whether a risk of harm is legally equivalent to harm itself.

Most states in the United States have managed to retain laws forbidding riding a motorcycle without a helmet or driving without seat belts, on the grounds that accidents cost the entire society in the form of publicly-provided health care costs. These laws are resented among certain segments of the motorcycle-riding public, in particular those that regard riding a motorcycle as an expression of personal freedom, as opposed to riding around in a car.

Some laws eminently reflect a dominant or prevalent cultural position and therefore impose conformity with the cultural preferences of the majority of citizens. Sexually-related crimes frequently belong to this kind of legislation, and are in some cases prosecuted only if a public scandal is effectively originated; in these cases the avoidance of scandals that offend politically-influential segments of society might then be the goal of the law.

Artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization, human cloning and other medical or chemical interventions on the processes of human reproduction can be forbidden due to a general interest of the state in protecting the biological integrity of the species, and to head off almost inevitable birth defects. In some countries commissions for bioethics have been created in order to define the prevalent position and consequently adjust legislation to their consensus. Template:Needs Verification

Legalization of victimless acts

Many activities that were once considered crimes are no longer illegal in some countries, at least in part because of their status as victimless crimes. For example, in the United Kingdom in the 1950s, the Wolfenden report recommended the legalization of homosexuality for these reasons. Almost fifty years later, Lawrence v. Texas struck down U.S. sodomy laws. Over the same period, abortion was legalized in most countries (although the victimless nature of abortion is still a subject of controversy).

Prohibition of alcohol was repealed in the United States, and there are efforts to legalize cannabis in many countries. Also, some reformers advocate the legalization of all currently illegal drugs and generally recommend legal regulation of the supply of drugs.

Further reading

• Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (ISBN 0-931580-58-7) is a book by Peter McWilliams criticizing the existence of laws against consensual crimes. See http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc.htm.

See also

• Euthanasia
• Force-initiation
• Harm principle
• Historical pederastic couples
• Illegal drug trade
• Libertarianism
• Polygamy
• Sumptuary
• Involuntary commitment

External links

Pro-reform

• http://www.halexandria.org/dward267.htm
• http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~nifty/victimless.html
• http://www.privacilla.org/government/victimlesscrimes.html

Pro-status-quo

• http://crime.about.com/od/prostitution/a/prostitution.htm