No Victim = No Crime - You Are Being Victimized Twice

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

Look, I just posted the study that says drunk drivers don't care about DUI laws because they are operating under the assumption they are fine to drive.

Thus we could say that if you drive drunk, you could be executed on the spot and people WOULD STILL DRIVE DRUNK.

You can ratchet up the penalties, increase enforcement, spend the entire national GDP on nothing but enforcing DUI laws and nothing would change - nothing.

Because if people think they are fine to drive, no DUI law is going to prevent them from driving.

Now OF COURSE your friend is going to be super cautious about driving drunk after getting a DUI, but your friend does not constitute the entire middle class of America.

So what - ONE GUY is now going to pay close attention to his drinking. Do you expect the police to arrest everyone in America on DUI convictions to teach them all a lesson?

So your solution is get rid of the law completely and only prosecute if they DO kill someone?
Brilliant!
I NEVER said that ONE GUY constituted the entire middle class, but he is a person who was effected POSITIVELY by the laws that are in place currently.
So why wouldn't others? Oh, right, that one study you showed totally proved that every single person who drives drunk thinks they're great at it.
Last post I swear

So your idea is screw even trying prevent people from getting killed lets just punish people after they do it? I could stop that drunk driver on this currently empty back road but I will just wait to arrest him until he gets 2 blocks over kills a family coming back from the movies. Yeah, I do not see any public back lash about that at all. You know the entire reason some of these laws are so harsh is because of public pressure. People think laws should try and protect them not just punish people after the fact.

reply to post by MrSpad


Well, since the data clearly shows that YOU CAN'T prevent someone from drinking and driving, that its best just to punish those who hurt someone while they are doing it.

Since I've proved there is no difference in deterrence, the marginal costs to society of enforcing DUI laws the way they are written now far out weight the benefits.

Simple cost/benefit says we should move to a system that only punishes those who hurt others - the moral argument says this is the only just system of punishment as well.

It is immoral to punish people who have hurt no one by their actions.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by MrSpad

 

Well, since the data clearly shows that YOU CAN'T prevent someone from drinking and driving, that its best just to punish those who hurt someone while they are doing it.

Since I've proved there is no difference in deterrence, the marginal costs to society of enforcing DUI laws the way they are written now far out weight the benefits.

Simple cost/benefit says we should move to a system that only punishes those who hurt others - the moral argument says this is the only just system of punishment as well.

It is immoral to punish people who have hurt no one by their actions.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

If your going to toss out numbers you need to put them in the correct context. You seem to forget how many additional drivers their are on the road. By 2003 their were already 16 million more drivers on the road. It seems that with 16 million additional drivers if none of them were affected by DUI laws then we should have seen a large spark in DUI deaths no? Why did it not? Was it deterence? Was it aliens? Who knows but something is working. As is, if tough DUI laws save one life then they are worth having. Period.

OP, you have basically just described common law which is the only law that the state has a right to enforce without your consent. If you are not causing harm, loss or injury then there has been no crime been committed.

No injured third party = no crime.

When they act as policy enforcers they are trying to force you to consent to agree that you have broken the terms and conditions of a contract. This is satutory law. A statute only has the force of law when consented to by the governed. Don't consent.

reply to post by MrSpad


Look, a published study is going to control for those factors.

Looking at random statistics isn't the same thing as looking at a study that controls for different influencing effects.

Further, we need to look at the marginal benefit to society here.

Lets say we could stop all DUIs on the road for a cost of 100 trillion dollars.

Should we do that?

OF COURSE NOT

What we do know from the study is that the marginal gain per cost of increased enforcement is extremely low.

So we have a situation where not enforcing the law creates huge benefits to society in terms of costs savings, with a very minimal increase in fatalities.

Or alternatively we could say, enforcing the law costs a huge amount to society in terms of monetary costs, with very little to show for it in terms of lives saved.

It is better to only punish those who hurt someone just on this fact alone, not to mention the moral argument, since it is immoral to punish someone who has not hurt anyone.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Using this argument leads to the obvious conclusion that LAWS do not work. if they did, people would not commit murder.

Still, according to your argument bribery would be legal so the limited justice system in your world would be rife with corruption as every judge, jury and witness would be able to be bribed to reach the verdict the briber wanted.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Using this argument leads to the obvious conclusion that LAWS do not work. if they did, people would not commit murder.

uhhh no.

Laws work to punish, not prevent.

For example gun laws, which try to prevent murder, don't prevent murder.

Murder laws, which punish murder, are the deterrent we rely on to keep people from murdering each other.

Murder has a victim, gun laws do not.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Allow me to demonstrate how some simple restructuring of laws to include victims could save us hundreds of billions of dollars a year in police enforcement costs, as well as reducing the rampant looting of the public by pirate police enforcers.

Lets start off with drunk driving:

If you drink and have a BAC of .10 or higher and get into a traffic accident or recklessly put someones life in danger, all normal penalties apply. If you are swerving, the cop should pull you over and make you get a ride home.

- did you see what I did there? It's not illegal to drink and drive, its illegal to drink/drive and hurt someone.


How about gun laws (which are totally pointless):

If you shoot someone and are not justified in doing so, all normal penalties apply.


How about speeding and blowing red lights:

If you speed or run a red light and injure someone, all normal penalties apply.

- Such a law would alleviate traffic congestion substantially because red lights could be treated as stop signs in the event there is no cross traffic.


How about doing flaming bar tending tricks:

If you blow flames all over the place and hurt someone, all normal penalties apply.

-shocking? I think we would survive in a society just fine with this law.


How about doing drugs:

If you injure someone while doing drugs, such as driving under the influence or instigating a fight, all normal penalties apply.


Now I know such logic is probably disturbing to most of you, who have been raised by the State in publik schools, but trust me when I tell you that more freedom means you get to keep more of your money. (a lot more).

You are loosing a substantial portion of your paycheck to pay for the enforcement of such vicitimless laws. You are getting raped twice for every crime that is prosecuted. YOU PAY for the trial of the criminal. YOU PAY for the incarceration of the criminal. This means that if someone causes harm to you, you are victimized twice under our current system.

It is imperative that we recognize this double victimization and do everything we can to reduce it as much as possible. - This means eliminating ALL victimless crime.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

I agree but I dont think the government will be changing the laws any time soon since they get a lot of money from making people pay fines,
The government doesnt really care about us, all they want is money,
They will tax and fine you for anything that they could imagine,
This government is totally corrupt

reply to post by mnemeth1


I can't believe what im seeing people post.

Let me ask you because you said

"Punishment isn't warranted if they haven't hurt someone by their actions."

So breaking the law is ok if no one is hurt? So i can rob a bank or steal your car and ....well hack your PC take everything i need to take your identity and sell it on the black market. Because no one was hurt?

Letting people off will only let them think its ok. And the drunk will think as long as he don't hurt no one the cops have to let him go.

And at your 8 year old sons grave i know you will say "it's ok son he is in jail we got him"

Really people?

Edit: BTW im not saying if you do have a 8 year old son that i would ever hope anything bad happens to him not at all just making a point thats all.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by GunzCoty]

Originally posted by MrSpad
So your idea is screw even trying prevent people from getting killed lets just punish people after they do it? I could stop that drunk driver on this currently empty back road but I will just wait to arrest him until he gets 2 blocks over kills a family coming back from the movies. Yeah, I do not see any public back lash about that at all. You know the entire reason some of these laws are so harsh is because of public pressure. People think laws should try and protect them not just punish people after the fact.

I read a great article titled Paternalism in Government. It begins thus: 'Once we concede that it is the duty of government to protect man from his own foolishness, where then can we draw the line?'

Freedom is fraught with risk. Totalitarianism comes with the risk that there is always someone who thinks there ain't enough of it.

Methinks Mr. Spad wants to become the head of Pre-Crime Division. Some pigs are MORE EQUAL than others eh dude?

Originally posted by AntiShyster

Originally posted by MrSpad
So your idea is screw even trying prevent people from getting killed lets just punish people after they do it? I could stop that drunk driver on this currently empty back road but I will just wait to arrest him until he gets 2 blocks over kills a family coming back from the movies. Yeah, I do not see any public back lash about that at all. You know the entire reason some of these laws are so harsh is because of public pressure. People think laws should try and protect them not just punish people after the fact.

I read a great article titled Paternalism in Government. It begins thus: 'Once we concede that it is the duty of government to protect man from his own foolishness, where then can we draw the line?'

Freedom is fraught with risk. Totalitarianism comes with the risk that there is always someone who thinks there ain't enough of it.

Methinks Mr. Spad wants to become the head of Pre-Crime Division. Some pigs are MORE EQUAL than others eh dude?

I do not know what this gibberish about pre-crime division and pigs is about. Nor do I care about protecting man from his own foolishness, if you want to do something stupid and risk your own life I could care less. That is your right. However when a mans foolisness ends up killing a family of 4 then you have a problem. Killing other people is not your right.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I think what you are trying to illustrate is the difference between the Common Law, and Statutory Law. Under the Common Law no law is broken unless there is a victim.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I can't believe what im seeing people post.

Let me ask you because you said

"Punishment isn't warranted if they haven't hurt someone by their actions."

So breaking the law is ok if no one is hurt? So i can rob a bank or steal your car and ....well hack your PC take everything i need to take your identity and sell it on the black market. Because no one was hurt?

Letting people off will only let them think its ok. And the drunk will think as long as he don't hurt no one the cops have to let him go.

And at your 8 year old sons grave i know you will say "it's ok son he is in jail we got him"

Really people?

Edit: BTW im not saying if you do have a 8 year old son that i would ever hope anything bad happens to him not at all just making a point thats all.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by GunzCoty]

Bank robbery, theft, and hacking all have a clear victim that can stand in a courtroom, while gun laws, drug laws, and prostitution for example, do not.

Letting people off who have not caused harm to anyone is the moral thing to do. It is immoral to punish people who have caused harm to no one.

Since the evidence is clear that drunk driving laws do nothing to prevent drunk driving, we can say that not only is it morally wrong to punish someone that has hurt no one, it doesn't work either.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Well, bribery has no victim now does it?

So, bribing, say, the judge, the jury, and witnesses would be ok in the Anarchist world, because there would be no victim.

So, the justice system would be completely broken and there would be no way anyone could be sure that the judgment handed down wasn't bought.

reply to post by whatukno


Bribery has a victim.

For example, If I bribe a politician to enact favorable legislation, regulate my competition out of business, or give me a government contract, the clear victims are my competitors.

My competitors would be entirely justified in filing a civil suit against me and the politician for engaging in this conduct.

Someone can stand in the courtroom and say "I have been personally damaged by this behavior"

Bribery always has specific winners and losers.



[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]