The voters have decided that Pedo_Cat is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Also by Pedo_Cat-7If there's a Shaun WHITE and a Jakob BLACK, then why aren't there any Joe YELLOW's? amirite?
Also by Pedo_Cat+37Rémi Gaillard is the ultimate troll. amirite?
Also about People & Celebrities+11If you tell someone that they can't do or have something, they then want to do it, or have it, even more, amirite?
Also by Pedo_Cat-106Cross country is the most under represented, underclothed, and BEST sport. amirite?
Also about People & Celebrities+41Given the chance most of us would eff a celebrity, amirite?
Also about People & Celebrities+7It's almost impossible to walk through a graveyard without picturing a bony hand popping out of the ground trying to get you, amirite?
Why the hell is Casey Anthony one of the topics?
The worst part of your comment is how true it is.
What if it's something that COULD have a victim, but doesn't always? Like... drunk driving for instance. If you drink and drive but manage to get from point A to point B, is it still a crime? And if not, can you get pulled over for it if you haven't hurt anyone? There may be better examples, that's just one I thought of.
You should get pulled over because you have the potential to hurt someone soon.
It could be fatal, so I don't think it would be legal. Unless something is completely victimless then it shouldn't be considered a victimless crime.
Something that lacks the potential to have a victim should be the post, doesn't necessarily have a victim, but there easily could be one
Others that are iffy.
-LSD. (While it's impossible to overdose on LSD people have been known to have bad trips and cause harm to themselves because that didn't know what was going on. The thing is this only happens when taking excessive amounts of LSD. Strict control of the substance should be allowed in my opinion.)
-Abortion. (Obviously what's iffy here is determining if the foetus is considered human enough to be a "victim". I am personally Pro Choice.)
@Chasing_Echoes: Gay marriage isn't a crime.
Well it isn't legal. Because marriage has to go through government they just won't allow you to marry. So you can never truly commit the act. But it is still illegal.
I would agree with you that pot is a victimless crime if not for the Colombian drug cartels who are the spawn of American marijuana demand.
Euthanasia has a customer.
Dimethyltryptamine it's a psychedelic drug along the lines of lsd but people say it produces more vivid hallucinations
DMT is a naturally occurring substance found almost everywhere in nature. It is produced in our brains every night when we sleep and is what causes us to dream. It can be found in many plants, extracted, and then smoked or used in tea. It is the most powerful hallucinogenic substance on the planet. Many of it's users claim to experience contact with a Creator giving it the nick name "The Spirit Molecule". The effects last for about 5-30 minutes depending on the dose. They are also so strong that unlike other hallucinogens the location of where you take it does not matter. DMT because it is such a naturally occurring drug has ZERO negative effects. And due to its intense power it can't really be abused. (Driving UTI) For a hint at what you see (explaining the feeling is like explaining colours to a blind person) while using the subject I give you this picture.
There is also a documentary on Netflix explaining it in much greater detail. I highly recommend it.
Here's a video showing the trip pretty well.
It starts at about :30
@lemme think Victimsless crime
That's fucking insane...
Doesn't euthanasia have victims?
Assisted Suicide has a customer. Euthanasia can still be considered a victim.
Does Colombia export marijuana to the US? I thought they only did cocaine. If they do, making it legal would end that, anyway.
What is DMT?
It's also good to note that not everyone experience animals. Many will see geometric patterns. Some will have very fluid visions of actual beings. It's dependent on the person. But EVERYONE will leave this world.
Tis. I hope to study it one day. Go watch that documentary (it might be on YouTube too) it's an incredibly fascinating chemical.
I agree with all of the above except for LSD. I don't know I feel like it would be taken out of control.
But yeah that would be a nice world there.
Thanks for the info, Anon and Chasing_Echos.
With many "victimless" crimes, the person committing the crime is making themselves the victim. For example, harmful drugs.
If you're harming yourself I wouldn't classify it as victimless. Usually in situations such as drug abuse related deaths and suicide, the least affected person is the "victim", their family and friends are going to hurt an awful lot more saying as they have to bury them and live with the pain.
I think any law that is in place to "protect us from ourselves" should be abolished. I agree with HarryPotterFan777. If I want to fry my brain with ecstasy and cocaine, you don't have the right to tell me I can't. If you think you do, then don't you also have the right to tell me I can't eat cake, cut myself, go to tanning beds, or do anything else that isn't good for me? It's the exact same principle. And before anyone brings up how drugs make people hurt other people, just don't. In some cases, drugs cause violent behavior (the Miami "zombie"), but it isn't at all common.
But if I want to harm myself, that's my business.
Oh, and drugs can also cause car accidents, but as long as alcohol is legal, that isn't a valid argument.
And when your tripping out you can harm others
It's good to see a POTD with a near even score.
Because some laws are laws because they're in the best interest for all of society (like the having to pay taxes law). Just because there would be no victim if they were violated doesn't mean they aren't important.
I opened up Amirite and saw POTD had +0 and was all like
:( y u go NW
So you're implying that if a country collapses due to having no money, there would be no victims? Seems unlikely.
I'm sure the families of the deceased will be slightly offended. Also it's destruction of property and trespassing to get them out of the grave.
Yes. If the person whom the body belongs to gives you permission to have sex with their dead body then by all means have your way with it.
I think the problem with things like necrophilia and grave robbing (basically any victimless crime concerning the dead) is that corpses are horrible, horrible magnets for disease. A lot of disease in middle ages was due to the dead just not being treated properly then - graves not dug deep enough so dogs would dig them up and bring them into the open, etc. One incident is harmless. Two or three or four probably is too. But wide-scale bad handling of the dead wreaks havoc on public health.
EDIT: This is probably a similar case for victimless sex acts such as public sex, nudity or masturbation. A few incidents harms pretty much nobody. But if it was legal, it could risk becoming more widespread, which would be very poor for sanitation, public health and overall public welfare.
Let's say the family didn't bury the body and gave it to you for that reason, then should it be legal? And victimized is not the same as offended. The homeless man down the street has no family and wrote in his will I could have his body for sex, then should it be legal?
Some copyright laws are dumb as fuck in my opinion....
1. an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.
I think that if it's victimless, it therefore caused no harm to anyone, and should thus not be called a crime.
Actually I've just thought of an exception. Impersonating a police officer. Could (in rare circumstances) actually be a beneficial crime, yet it must remain a crime to keep the law system working.
So, this seems like a good post to bring up abortion... Is the fetus the victim??
Her thinking it's a human doesn't make it human. People need to learn the difference between emotion and factual evidence.
"Any contiguous living system is called an organism. These animate entities undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations."
I don't know to what extent a fetus reacts to the environment but to be fair there's not much of an environment to react to.
@Chasing_Echos ; The heart of a fetus starts beating between 18-24 days. That's less than a month. In many places, such as the US where I live, a woman can have an abortion throughout the first two trimesters.
Now I shift the emphasis over to human. It is alive the way any sack of cells is alive. It's alive enough for me to consider it life on another planet. However it is not alive or human enough for me to consider it murder.
Usually you are only allowed an abortion before the heart starts beating, showing it is alive.
If having an abortion at such an early stage is illegal, you might as well make throwing a rock into a pond illegal because you're hurting the pond, rock, and whatever the rock lands on.
Well if fact states that it's not a living human then it's not a living human. Even if it will eventually become one. I'm not sure how that can be interpreted.
Notice I said living human. If its heart isn't beating it isn't alive. And therefore abortion can not kill it.
Chasing_Echos, cells are, biologically speaking, alive. Without a heart, a fetus is a cluster of living cells with human DNA.
Hmmm. Well personally I don't consider it alive until it's out of the womb. I was just playing nice for the sake of not hurting feelings or starting a huge fight. So I'm just going to back down because I simply don't know enough about the biology of a fetus to have any sort of sound, logical judgement.
Couldn't you say that the pregnant person is a victim too? Pregnancy and labor harm the person who is carrying the fetus.
I agree, but there are so many gray areas that would have to be decided case by case.
There's always a victim. Either it's yourself or someone else. Nothing without a negative impact on people is illegal.
Marijuana. And technically Gay Marriage is illegal.
Marijuana has no proven health problems. I'm not sure where you got that. Also alcohol has been proven to being a stronger gateway drug than marijuana. And if someone being offended makes them a victim then quite literally everything should be illegal. Everyone is offended by something. That doesn't make them a victim.
Sorry. I just re read your comment. How in the FUCK is marijuana technically legal?
I know. I never said it was. I'm not sure where you got that. And wikipedia is an incredibly credible source. I'm done arguing with you because you're inserting your own bullshit and ignoring facts to try and win a debate. And I just can't handle that.
haha incredibly credible
The only (body) health problem you get from marijuana is when you smoke it, inhaling smoke is obviously not bad for you. THC it's self is not harmful, and you don't have to smoke weed to feel the effects.
The only study that's ever been done that proved marijuana harmed your brain is the one done on monkeys where the CO2 killed the cells, not the weed.
It had been shown to give users reversible (meaning they quit, the problem quits) short term memory problems. It has also been shown to be able to both trigger or repress psychosis. This is only because THC effects the caudate nucleu, then people experienced a sense of paranoia and an intensified sense of significance and auditory hallucinations. When not under the influence, these are signs of schizophrenia. It should also be noted that correlation does not equal causation. Just because you smoke weed and get a mental disorder that lasts while not high, doesn't mean weed is the problem. They might have gotten the disorder even if they never smoker.
The reason marijuana is a gateway drug is because it's illegal, so that is not a reason to keep it from being legal.
To say marijuana is technically legal because it is in s...
some countries is very stupid because I could easily say it's not legal because it's not in most places. If it is illegal for a girl to learn to read in one country, is it technically legal because girls in other countries can?
While I love what you have said I'd like to bring up a few points.
1. They did discover that they can kill rats with marijuana. What they do is fill their glass cage with smoke until there is no oxygen left. (you see the problem here)
2. All noted cases of mental disorders were later discovered to have a family history giving them a strong likelihood of having it themselves.
Other than that I thank you for your comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le...bis_by_country Read carefully. Then understand that not all countries abide under a single world law. Then understand that this post clearly isn't talking about places that a victimless crime isn't even considered a crime.
That really pisses me off. They're scientists for Christ's sake, they should know that filling the glass with the smoke of a freaking rose would kill them! It's like instead of going "I'm going to test what marijuana does to rats" they were like "I'm gonna prove marijuana kills you" and preformed a test that would "prove" that it did.
The mental disorder thing, I was pretty sure I had heard that before but I didn't want to say what I wasn't sure of, so I threw in correlation=/=causation.
Well these "Scientist" were government employed. It was their job to produce negative results. Much like the test performed for LSD. They gave 160 micrograms of LSD to the mice every other day for 3 months and said that they began to become less social. A human dose of LSD is 25 micrograms. And their "less social" aspects were probably them trying to stop having that much LSD forced on them. That sounds terrible. No one would want to go through that.
It's legal in parts of the world
Isnt maryjane legal in amsterdam??
? It is actually legal. What is your problem?
Sorry but I refuse to accept wikipedia as a credible source. And the post is talking about victimless crimes not being crimes. Well they aren't crimes in some places. America isn't the only country on earth.
marijuana and gay marriage are both technically legal. And even though I support gay marriage, it can upset deeply religious people so I guess they're a victim. Also, marijuana is proven to cause health problems and is a gateway to other drugs.
But what defines a "victim?" If someone is on like, heavy meth, they're obviously the victim yadda yadda blah, but shouldn't the family be considered victims because it hurts them to see their family member like that?
According to a law in Florida, anyone who takes a bath must wear clothes...
Does that mean I can take a tiger?
In Virginia (where I live) it's illegal to have sex with the light on.
Is that an actual law? Like. They wrote it down?
I don't know about any of the laws you guys mentioned, but it's illegal to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket in Lexington, KY. Reason: People used to lure horses away from their owners by putting ice cream cones in their back pockets. Makes sense I suppose but it's outdated and therefore not enforced.
Whaling is illegal here in Oklahoma.
I'm sure it's a huge problem there.
That's actually word for word. Most states have very strange laws that are never enforced for obvious reasons. http://m.randomhistory.com/crazy-laws.html
Well no bathing without clothing maybe it was the times where it was public baths or baths is just an old name for pool?
Why is this in the category "Casey Anthony"?
What would be an example of a victimless crime?
A crime that doesn't hurt or negatively affect another person (in most cases), such as prostitution.
what about tresspassing? if all your doing is going on someone else's property and not vandelizing, or breaking anything, or making noise, etc...
Yeah, but if you looked out your window and saw someone just standing on your lawn you'd get pretty creeped out.
By trespassing you are violating someones privacy. For instance, if you went into a corporate office you could see things that could give a rival company an unfair advantage.
thats true, i was just pissed off about this one time i got in trouble for tresspassing and i was mad cause i didnt harm anyone, and it wasnt like i was spying on someone's company or house or something
I think that "No victim, no crime" is too vague of a statement to be completely agreed upon, but for the most part I'd say yes. The law is supposed to protect us (although it's obviously more complicated than that), but police shutting down a little kid's lemonade stand or people being fined for their grass being an inch too long is just ridiculous.
Rape ALL the animals!
Since when are animals not a victim?
Me throwing a football has the potential to create a victim. Eating a gumball has a potential to create a victim. I don't think something should be a crime just because it has potential.
well with coke etc you're harming yourself etc, so there kinda is a victim, so its a crime, just the victim is yourself.
Attempted murder. No victim. Still a crime.
Um, even if the person didn't die, that person could have been injured physically and/or psychologically.
So you don't think things like grafitti, littering, public nudity, public urination, parking at a meter without paying, etc should be crimes?
grafitti, littering, public urinationvandalism. Obviously has a victim. parking at a meter without paying8Stealing. Again an obvious victim public nudityIndecent exposure. Nudity is a private thing. Keep your privates out of my public.
Anyone who witnesses public nudity can be considered a victim.
You don't have to be hurt to be a victim...
Okay, you're right about that one.
Not paying at a meter: meters are a pointless invention that just get the population to pay even more to the city. I think they should be eliminated.
Perhaps nudity laws are regional, and I interpreted "victim" with a negative connotation, meaning someone is hurt in some way even if insignificant. No one is coming up with examples of a victimless crime besides drugs and alcohol. Do more not exist? My examples failed, but I still NW because you can't say drunk driving, for instance, is not a crime until you hit someone. Then cops would have to wait for an accident and victims instead of preventing accidents by pulling people over and having them arrested. Some
My sister took this one class last year, and she said that the teacher (who's a cop) said that public nudity isn't actually illegal.
Okay, if I did graffitti on a sidewalk, who is the victim? Who is the victim if i drop a sheet of paper on the floor? If I pee in a bush, is that really vandalism, and who is getting hurt ? I'm thinking victim in terms of a person here. I guess the city is the victim if you dont pay for the meter, but a specific victim is not being singled out. Do you have any better examples of a victimless crimes?
Well, somebody loses things in a robbery, thus a victim...
Drunk driving that doesn't end in a crash.
Taking drugs is a victimless crime stealing is not a victimless crime and staving children intentionally is also nota victimless crime. The drugs is not the problem the addiction is
If I tried to shoot you but missed I should still be arrested.
Although drunk driving doesn't have an intended victim it does have a high likelihood for one. The risk behind it is too great. Some things need regulation.
Ugh, the post just says "A victimless crime should not be a crime" not "There are crimes in the country you live in that should not be crimes because they don't have victims." Even if you don't think there ARE crimes without victims, that's not a reason to disagree.
Now, the obvious example (for the U.S.) is smoking pot, and you can argue that it doesn't have a victim, because it doesn't harm the user and it's not addictive, and you can argue that it does, because it can be a "gateway drug" or whatnot, but that isn't the point of the post. (And yes, pretty much every other crime in America definitely has a victim). The point is that IF it doesn't have a victim, it shouldn't be a crime.
I think the point is more interesting to apply to other less democratic countries with more examples of "victimless crimes."
But the act of putting shit in your body could cause you to bring harm to others by your actions while influenced by this shit in your body
Well, if there was supposed to be a victim, they should be arrested...
@Jules Well it depends on the drug marijuana is technically not addictive. Cigarettes are harmless to others ( pretending that second hand smoking doesn't exist) And somethings are more addictive to some than others like alcohol. Thats why I said its the addiction and not the drug
@chasing echoes if you shoot at someone and miss its called intent to kill, and it is a crime, because you meant for tere to be a victim.
Anything could be a "could be" crime... Blinking while walking may accidentally cause you to hurt them or something...
The act of doing drugs does not hurt anybody but the user. Hitting someone, or otherwise getting in someone's face can harm them. The actual act of putting something in your own body doesn't hurt anyone else.
But putting the shit in your body shouldn't be illegal. What you do after is.