No Victim = No Crime - You Are Being Victimized Twice

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]

Must say I agree with all of that except for the drunk driving part, but only if they are completely intoxicated. If you see a drunk driver swerving all over the road, there's a 90% chance it's not going to end well. People should be punished for that, although not nearly as severe as it is today. The DUI laws we have in this country are downright ridiculous, and they do not stop most instances from occurring.

Everything else was spot on though.

reply to post by havenvideo


If someone is swerving all over the road, I would say we have a legitimate victim because they are grossly endangering others.

However, if someone is swerving all over a back country road and there is absolutely no traffic, I don't see the harm in this.

I think the correct response should be that the cop pulls the person over and forces them to leave the car and get a ride home.

In fact I think that should be the response in all cases where there is no direct harm to someone else.

Punishment isn't warranted if they haven't hurt someone by their actions. The inconvenience of being forced to get a ride is enough to deter most people. If someone is a chronic lush, no amount of laws are going to prevent them from driving drunk anyways.

9 times out of 10 when a cop pulls a person over because of erratic driving, its due to exhaustion, not alcohol.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

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]

If only there were more people in the world that think like you.
unfortunately we will all have to find out the hard way because
those in charge will never let go of their cash cow until we force
them to.

reply to post by mnemeth1

If you are swerving, the cop should pull you over and make you get a ride home.

And what about repeat offenders? Should we just keep letting the same people off because he hasn't killed anyone yet?

its illegal to drink/drive and hurt someone.

Which is going to happen eventually. Tell the families of the deceased sorry your family members died, but we can't enforce any laws about this reckless driving, have a good day.

but trust me when I tell you that more freedom means you get to keep more of your money. (a lot more).

Except if you died from drunk drivers who ran red lights and may have shot you while coming from the bar that probably burnt down and or been shot up twice already.

Or if you're one of the people who would be against this system, or even just lost a family member to it. I'd imagine that would spark some revenge killings

You are getting raped twice for every crime that is prosecuted

Sounds hot.

YOU PAY for the trial of the criminal. YOU PAY for the incarceration of the criminal

We pay for due process, to remain innocent until proven guilty, right to a lawyer, fair trial, etc. With the money saving logic, we can just save even more money by having offenders beheaded, without a trial, and hung outside of government buildings to remind people to not break a law. Might scare a few individuals from committing a crime, no?

I've never heard of someone who argues in favour of drunk driving before, you'd be quite a hoot at anti drunk driving events!

I see the point you're getting at but I feel the examples you've used don't really apply as most of them put people in harms way. Particularly the drunk driving example. I know that I cannot drive safely while intoxicated from alcohol. This knowledge leads me to believe that the case would be the same with others. Just giving someone a slap on the wrist for such a thing will encourage more people to drive drunk, raising the odds of someone getting hurt. Eventually someone would.



[edit on 8/19/2010 by NJE03]

Originally posted by NJE03
I see the point your getting at but I feel the examples you've used don't really apply as most of them put people in harms way. Particularly the drunk driving example. I know that I cannot drive safely while intoxicated from alcohol. This knowledge leads me to believe that the case would be the same with others. Just giving someone a slap on the wrist for such a thing will encourage more people to drive drunk, raising the odds of someone getting hurt. Eventually someone would.

Yeah but you are assuming now that people refrain from driving drunk because drunk driving laws exist.

This is not the case at all.

Allow me to demonstrate just how flawed your logic is:

Tragically, the 13,470 fatalities in 2006 caused by DUI drivers were slightly higher than the 13,451 fatalities caused by DUI drivers in 1996. One would hope that a decade of Public Service Announcements, education in high schools and defensive driving schools, as well as work by community groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) would have lessened the fatal impact of drunk driving.

Drunk driving laws do not prevent deaths. The statistics speak for themselves. DUI laws don't work.

If people understood that they could be prosecuted if they hurt someone, the deterrence factor is no different than it is now. What does change dramatically under my system is the amount of money necessary to enforce the DUI laws.

People that are driving drunk are already operating under the assumption that they are safe to drive, otherwise they wouldn't be driving in the first place. Thus any deterrence factor is lost - because they wouldn't be driving if they didn't think they were fine to drive.

To assume otherwise is to assume people are suicidal - which they aren't.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

I don't know where you're from mnemeth1, but in Illinois, if a person is only sleeping in his car and is intoxicated and the keys are in the ignition, he/she will lose his license. Many states are very tough on drinking and driving now.

Originally posted by Onboard2

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

I don't know where you're from mnemeth1, but in Illinois, if a person is only sleeping in his car and is intoxicated and the keys are in the ignition, he/she will lose his license. Many states are very tough on drinking and driving now.

yeah they are tough because the drunks are easy targets.

no one likes drunk drivers.

It is a self-perpetuating cycle. Police arrest more drunks because they can generate a large revenue from fines. The more revenue, the more police, the more police want to arrest more drunks.

Ultimately we need to look at if the law actually works though - which it is clear it does not.

Arresting more people for drunk driving does not make the roads any safer - it only causes more pain to the middle class which bares the brunt of the expenses, while it enriches the state.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Tragically, the 13,470 fatalities in 2006 caused by DUI drivers were slightly higher than the 13,451 fatalities caused by DUI drivers in 1996. One would hope that a decade of Public Service Announcements, education in high schools and defensive driving schools, as well as work by community groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) would have lessened the fatal impact of drunk driving.

Drunk driving laws do not prevent deaths. The statistics speak for themselves. DUI laws don't work.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

19 more fatalities and THATS your statistic to prove drunk driving laws don't prevent death?

Seems rather weak to me, trying to say we should stop drunk driving laws because 19 more people have died in 2006 than in 1996.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by hippomchippo
19 more fatalities and THATS your statistic to prove drunk driving laws don't prevent death?

Seems rather weak to me, trying to say we should stop drunk driving laws because 19 more people have died in 2006 than in 1996.

No, the 13,000 dead people annually is my statistic, it doesn't matter which year you chose.

If DUI laws worked, there should be no victims.

You're missing the point of the post entirely.

A decade of heavy fines and propaganda has done nothing to reduce fatalities on our roads.

This is because of the reasons I explained above - drunk drivers are already operating under the assumption they are safe to drive, thus there is no difference in deterrence factor between a law that prosecutes people for harming someone and one that simply prosecutes them for the act of driving.

If the goal of drunk driving laws is to reduce drunk driving fatalities, we can say DUI laws are a miserable failure.





[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by hippomchippo
19 more fatalities and THATS your statistic to prove drunk driving laws don't prevent death?

Seems rather weak to me, trying to say we should stop drunk driving laws because 19 more people have died in 2006 than in 1996.

No, the 13,000 dead people annually is my statistic, it doesn't matter which year you chose.

If DUI laws worked, there should be no victims.

You're missing the point of the post entirely.

A decade of heavy fines and propaganda has done nothing to reduce fatalities on our roads.

This is because of the reasons I explained above - drunk drivers are already operating under the assumption they are safe to drive, thus there is no difference in deterrence factor between a law that prosecutes people for harming someone and one that simply prosecutes them for the act of driving.

No, I don't think so.

Drunk driving has slowed dramatically as a whole since more laws were enacted.

Here's a site showing a 44% decrease 1982.
www.centurycouncil.org...

Now this is interesting - I came to the conclusion that there is no deterence factor in DUI laws using simple logic, but its nice to see science justify my logic:

www.dui.com...

A study conducted at the University of Florida in Gainesville suggests the threat of jail time does not deter drunk drivers. That stems primarily from the fact that most people who drive after drinking do not think they will be stopped for suspicion of DUI.

Researchers, led by Professor Alexander Wagenaar, looked at changes in DUI laws and jail penalties for drunk driving offenses from a 17 year period and compared them against the number of DUI arrests and alcohol related vehicular deaths. They found that stricter laws and harsher penalties do not deter people from drinking and driving. Nor did they reduce the number of alcohol related accidents.

Wagenaar said, “There are many in the general public who continue to drive after drinking because they don’t really believe that they’re going to be detected, pulled over, caught and go through the process to be convicted before a jail term would come into play.”

The study has been published in the Accident Analysis and Prevention section of sciencedirect.com.

Its nice to see that my logic is backed up by the science.

Double post, my bad.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by hippomchippo

No, I don't think so.

Drunk driving has slowed dramatically as a whole since more laws were enacted.

Here's a site showing a 44% decrease 1982.
www.centurycouncil.org...

That's a false assumption.

It does not include the effects of anti-dui propaganda.

I would argue that people stopped driving drunk not because of DUI laws, but because of public education on the issue.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by hippomchippo

No, I don't think so.

Drunk driving has slowed dramatically as a whole since more laws were enacted.

Here's a site showing a 44% decrease 1982.
www.centurycouncil.org...

That's a false assumption.

It does not include the effects of anti-dui propaganda.

I would argue that people stopped driving drunk not because of DUI laws, but because of public education on the issue.

Oh ok, so you get to choose what the statistics show?
How is your assumption any different from mine?
Personally, one of my friends got a DUI, had his license suspended, and now doesn't drink AT ALL. Is that because of public education too?

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Oh ok, so you get to choose what the statistics show?
How is your assumption any different from mine?
Personally, one of my friends got a DUI, had his license suspended, and now doesn't drink AT ALL. Is that because of public education too?

I just quoted you the study that backed up exactly what I said - people who drive drunk are operating under the assumption they are fine to drive. Thus no laws are going to deter them.

What more do you want?


[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
- did you see what I did there? It's not illegal to drink and drive, its illegal to drink/drive and hurt someone.

Yes I did see what you did there. But why make it so complicated? Cut to the chase and just hand everyone a gun and a bullet and let's all play russian roulette. Same thing.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Oh ok, so you get to choose what the statistics show?
How is your assumption any different from mine?
Personally, one of my friends got a DUI, had his license suspended, and now doesn't drink AT ALL. Is that because of public education too?

I just quoted you the study that backed up exactly what I said - people who drive drunk are operating under the assumption they are fine to drive. Thus no laws are going to deter them.

What more do you want?

[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Less than an assumption?

Not everyone thinks they are good drivers when drunk, but they may drive anyway because they're in a rush if there is no law against it, say they get into a crash and kill themselves. If there was a law inplace that would be worth a damn at catching drunk drivers, it would certainly deter some folks.

I don't see how you think drunk driving laws aren't worth anything and don't effect ANYBODY positively.

And please, answer my question about my friend who quit drinking entirely after having his license suspended, was that because of public education?

I'm going to go watch a movie, might check back on this thread when I get back.

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?