Posts
The term "victimless crimes" is self-explanatory; it is a "crime" that has no victim, so it is a crime only because the government has decided that it is.
True crime has a victim, a complaining party that was harmed in some measurable way; someone who's property was stolen, was physically assaulted, etc. These are crimes that should be investigated and if the criminal is found, compensated for. If the the crime is of a violent nature some level of incarceration may be needed.
It is based on consent, where there is consent there is no victim. If a person agrees to an action through their free will then there is consent; a willing person cannot therefor be their own victim.
Unfortunately, victimless crimes have become the norm in fundraising by the government. They criminalize all sorts of acts that have no victim, assign a monetary to that act and then rake in the cash.
By crime I mean an act that the government has prohibited, which would either be punished at first by a ticket (summary offences) or a more serious punishment (indictable offences).
Some current examples of victimless crimes in Manitoba;
Sodomy, illegal until 1969, still illegal if more than 2 people are present.
Statutory Rape; illegal for people under the age 16 to have sex, has a "close-in-age exception".
Endangering the Morals of a Child; by drinking, being adulterous or any other form of vice.
Speeding; if without being reckless, going even 1KM over the limit is illegal
Possessing and/or Consuming Alcohol; if you are under the age of 18
Not having your drivers license on you while driving
Making and selling your own cigarettes
Growing, selling or possessing cannabis
Running a bawdy house
Soliciting a prostitute
Re-selling event tickets, aka scalping
Playing poker
A lot of those issues have to do with morals; morals are relative, they change from person to person. If you expect to be able to live your moral values freely then you need to allow other the same privilege.
These activities take up a lot of government resources, which costs money, which comes from taxes forced out of you and I.
If victimless crimes where either ignored or off the books we would all be better off because government could then focus on protecting peoples rights rather than violating them, costing a lot less money in the meantime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
"Vices Are Not Crimes"
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm
Richard G.
wow just wow! a close in age exception?
some of these laws really need updating
I like how you placed speeding as a victimless crime.
Speeding is a victimless crime is no one is vicimtized. Going 1 KM over the limit (which is speeding) does not harm anyone by it's mere act.
@ Jen. Canada's age of consent laws were modified a few years ago to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. If there is going to be an age of consent law (which I don't think there should be) then having a close in age exception is somewhat reasonable.
Road rules are in place to reduce the chances of a victim being created. Prevention is better than having to tell a child that her mother is dead because of a speeder.
Your assessment of speeding is also misleading. Under law, passing on the highway, if passing using an oncoming lane, requires that you speed so as to get to safety as soon as possible. While highway speed limits are kept artificially low, city speed limits are generally (not always) set for safe driving. Yes, going over the speed limit by 1 kilometer per hour may seem minimal, but where do you draw a line on how much you can go over a speed limit before it is considered reckless? That is what the speed limits are, the point at which it has been decided (in most cases) that going beyond would be reckless. It is called a LIMIT for a reason. Many driving instructors suggest driving five under the limit at all times, and it is the law that you have to reduce it more during bad weather. Speeding on a roadway puts not just yourself, but many others at risk, and attempting to have individually mitigating circumstances for each individual situation simply takes too many resources. Much simpler, and safer, to simply have a limit, and enforce it.
What is safe driving and how is it determined? How are variables such as vehicle types and driver experience rated into speed limits?
How can you say that driving an Audi S10 at 130 km/h is unsafe on an open road?
The problem is that government always sets blanket "solutions" for everyone that don't address the real safety issue and really only gives a sense of safety and security.
The way laws should be designed is to encourage people to think as opposed to having them obey. So, if a person gets into an accident, they should be liable for all costs and expenses and possible jail time depending on how severe of an accident they cause and previous driving infractions.
It is more of a waste to have police looking out for people on their cell phones or speeding that MAY cause an accident as opposed to looking for people that have actually caused harm to someone else. I hear that the North End could use some cops on the beat there!
The government applies a reasonable speed limit for the average person under common circumstances.
Just because you or I can handle going 130 km/h in an Audi on a open road on a sunny day doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who would have a problem going 80km/h in the same conditions. Both possibilities have to be taken into account, and the middle ground is taken. If you removed speed limits most people wouldn't even consider the possible repercussions of being reckless while driving. Nevermind that they can't be liable for much if they die as a result of it.
I think speed limits are a matter of public safety since the potential for a negative impact on others is rather significant. However, seatbelt fines are a different story. If you don't want to wear your seatbelt, that should be your risk to take.
As for statutory rape; if we had any sense of morality this wouldn't have to be a law.
C has it right. If you want to speed just because you can handle a car at a higher speed than the average, do it on a race track. The government is there to protect us from each other, and your speeding, Gustav, is a part of that protection. The government says, "This is what is safe for the average person," and leaves it at that, because doing it any other way would be more costly to everyone. If you don't like it, go to a country that doesn't control its roads. Just make sure you go heavily armed, because those countries are also places where you are the most likely to be murdered instead of dying of old age.
The fact of the matter is that people tend not to be responsible. Most people think they can handle higher speeds, and in reality they can't. You likely can't go as fast safely as you think you can. Speeding is a crime because it puts everyone, including yourself, in danger.
If it's about safety, then why not take more appropriate measures like not allowing women under 21 and men under 25 to drive. Also allowing only women to drive between the hours of 11pm and 6am. This would best ensure that people are the safest when on the roads and accidents would be very minimal.
By both of your rationale, the government also has the right to tell us we cannot have firearms to protect ourselves because some people will get hurt and it also has the right to tell us what we can eat and put in our bodies because some people abuse themselves.
Your paternalism is no different which way you look at it, and only creates a society of dependants.
If you want people to make rational choices, allow them to make mistakes, fail and then learn.
First, your first suggestions are based in discrimination, making them illegal as is. Age has nothing to do with ability to drive, it is experience. If you increased the age of driving, it would no longer be youth with the most accidents, but people in their mid-twenties. Ridiculous and illogical idea at best.
Second, I stated it is primarily to protect us from each other. That is a part of the government's job. You are not as responsible as you think, and the vast majority of people aren't either. There is plenty of evidence to show that firearms in the hands of private citizens actually reduces crime, and accidents are minimal. On the other hand, uncontrolled traffic has been proven to be dangerous. The personal responsibility is forced onto society through speed laws.
http://youareanignoramous.blogspot.com/2010/07/speed-limits.html
Justin,
You are being paternalistic and not rational. You are saying that just because some people cannot take care of themselves and because that MAY involve a third party, government has to step in and set a standard.
Saying that younger people shouldn't drive is about as discriminating as saying that men are better than women at math and sciences. Yes it is true, but that's how life is. Youth, and especially male youth, are the ones that take higher risks and have a greater sense of invincibility, therefore causing more accidents and harm, and hence why in pretty much every other jurisdiction insurance rates are so high for young drivers.
Coupled with that men are worse drivers than women, again for the reason that men are more likely to take more risk than women like drinking and driving. Again, that is typically why insurance rates are higher for men, than women.
People will be responsible, so long as you give them the choice to be. Again, your paternatlism does nothing to make that choice, because they are just told to obey. All that does is just make people more leary of the police and modifies people to become more aware of their presence.
Yes, accidents will happen still, just as they do now with speed limits still in place, if there were no speed limits.
You just called me irrational?
I'm merely stating facts.
Look at any country in the world with uncontrolled roads. Road deaths are drastically higher. I do not believe for one minute that you are as responsible as you think you are.
You are the one being irrational. You have this irrational idea that human beings actually think before absolutely every single last action they make. They do not. Humans make mistakes, and in the case of speeding, those mistakes cost lives.
In this case, it has to be said. As goes the title of my blog.
Congratulations, YOU'RE AN IDIOT!
And yes, that is my closing argument.
Well, I've guess you've just shown the extent of your logic and rational by resorting to name calling and child like arguments.
Well done!
Perhaps you should look at what happened when the United States rescinded their national speed limit and look at mortality rates in Montana.
Rather than responding next time, I'll do it for you...
"I know you are, but what am I"
Sorry, I just don't argue with people who are unwilling to accept reality and live in a fantasy world in order to further their own argument.
Way to side step again...
Once again, I'll make your next argument for you.
"My dad can beat up your dad"
Justin why pick on the easy one? How about playing poker? Should people be arrested for that?
"Not so fast says a follow up study just completed by National Motorists Association. The study shows the safest period on Montana’s Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws."
http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
Australia's Northern Territory had no blanket speed limits outside major towns until January 2007 when rural speed limits of 110 km/h or 130 km/h were introduced.[18] Prior to the speed limit fatalities were 55 (in 2005) and 44 (in 2006). In 2007 they rose to 57 and then again to 75 (in 2008) before falling to 31 in 2009.[19]
I'm not arguing about highway speed limits. I've already stated that they are artificially low. It is city speed limits that are necessary. If some idiot blew through a school zone at 100km/h, I'd hope we'd hang the irresponsible idiot.
Poker, everyone agrees to risk their money. On the road, most are trying to get form A to B safely, and speed limits inside cities helps with that.
And Gustav, you were the first person on here to start with the "name calling". Your argument, once you realized you had no logical backing you, turned into calling me paternalistic and irrational, and yet you can't actually refute what I'm saying.
Yeah, highway speed limits don't make sense in places like North America or Australia, since the roads are long, wide and straight, and vehicle tend to be fairly far apart. In cities, vehicles get close together, you have stop lights, turn offs, crosswalks, school zones, buses and plenty of pedestrians. It is simply logical to put speed limits in place in order to reduce accidents and deliberate irresponsibility. This isn't paternalism. It is protecting innocent people from morons who think they can drive faster safely than they actually can.
Morons like Gustav.
Justin Hoffer: "Under law, passing on the highway, if passing using an oncoming lane, requires that you speed so as to get to safety as soon as possible."
I'm quite certain this is not true. The subsections on overtaking and passing don't mention speed as far as I can see. The only allowances for exceeding a speed limit are 106(1) and 107. 106(1) applies only to peace officers, emergency vehicles (or vehicles carrying emergency equipment), and escorted vehicles during an emergency response or pursuit. 107 applies to peace officers testing a speedometer.
It is based on the way the law is interpreted more than actually stating you speed. Reckless driving, which includes going too slow for the circumstances, is against the law. Speeding to safety in the case of passing into an oncoming lane is safer than not speeding, so not speeding would be considered reckless driving.
Unrelated note: This word verification had me type in "bolyphoo". I just found this funny.
Post a Comment