No Such Thing As A Victimless Crime?
According to a recent study of police recorded crimes in the area of Nottinghamshire, England, crimes against businesses in the area have been on the rise. It's estimated that a crime is taking place roughly every 30 minutes according to their data.
The crimes range from burglary to robbery, theft by an employee, shoplifting, and more.
Retail crime is growing and it's prompted one director of policy for the East Midlands Chamber to make the bold claim that there is no such thing as a victimless crime.
But surely there is, there are many.
For example, if you have two adults that are willingly entering into an exchange, no one is forcing them to exchange, and they are doing so willingly, peacefully, and both parties feel as if they are benefiting from the arrangement, the state can still deem their exchange to be a crime. But there aren't any victims in that scenario, because both parties feel they are better off from the exchange. Drug exchanges are a quick and easy example.
This doesn't mean that all activity within the drug market itself is victimless. However, when one party is looking to purchase drugs and one is looking to sell, there are no victims in that scenario at least according to those who are making the arrangement.
Yes there are victimless crimes, and the state continues to make billions off of prosecuting them and infringing upon such natural rights and freedoms.
This isn't the first time that such a nonsense claim has been made, that there aren't any victimless crimes.
If all of the rules were just however, in deeming someone a criminal for a particular action that's prohibited at the time, then we wouldn't have a history of jury nullification being exercised to say otherwise.
When an action doesn't violate the property rights of someone else it is hard to see how there is any victim, because there isn't when no abuse has taken place and no individual has committed aggression against an innocent party. There shouldn't be any punishments associated with such actions, because a group, no matter what name they give themselves, shouldn't be able to commit aggression against an innocent party when that individual hasn't wronged another.
Supporting the infringement upon such natural rights seems like a quick way to grow the disease that is the state, at the expense of individual liberty with each step forward. Eventually, you will need to ask permission to engage in a countless range of activities: fishing, driving, camping, selling, growing, painting, traveling. We shouldn't seek to make criminals where there aren't any.
Pics:
pixabay
pic3
I realize it’s not what the policy director meant when saying “there are no victimless crimes”, but I would have to say the statement is actually true in the sense that if there is no victim, then there cannot be a crime, thus no victimless crimes. If only the “authorities” would abide by this clear definition of what does and does not constitute a crime.
it isn't clear if he meant in general or pertaining specifically to the retail crimes, I took it to mean in general and aside from him there are others who have suggested the same, still those retail crimes do have victims and who would say otherwise? 🙈if violating a law on the books, even without an obv victim, i doubt they'd agree that it doesn't constitute a 'victimless crime', I think they mean they see every 'crime' as having a victim✌️
How does that old saying go? When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. They have the hammer and they are looking to nail everyone they can.
But of course theft, of any kind, has a victim and is a crime. ✌️
one of my fave sayings lol forget where i first heard it but it's a perfect description ✌️ trying to solve a problem with a problem
Came here to point this out. You beat me to it.
You are an amazingly smart and well spoken person. I value your opinion very much. I’m honored and humbled that I might express an opinion that you share. ✌️💚😎
Aw, shucks! You flatter me. It is I that am fortunate to benefit from your voice, honestly.
Fighting real crime is dangerous and costly.
Arresting people for cannabis possession is easy and almost danger free.
However, the system makes a ton of money off of these easy prey.
We need to hold financially accountable the entire system.
When finance is no longer useful, their accounts will pay. The means justify the ends, and when their means end, it'll be justified.
I imagine the state would argue that itself is the victim of "victimless crimes". At least in the example you provided.
When you make a private sale (even if it's an apple), they want their cut of the sale (sales tax) and their cut of the profits (capital gains).
For example, you may be familiar with the "unauthorized substance tax", LINK
They would probably argue that your failure to pay these taxes constitutes theft.
they would absolutely argue they themselves are the victim, that's what they do. But common sense should lead us in another direction... shouldn't it? But..they've gotta have their cut!💰
Do you think it's legitimate to argue that exchanging cash between individuals is a taxable function because we never truly own our state-issued-currency?
Shouldn't we expect to "pay-for-the-privilege" so-to-speak (or create our own currency equivalent)?
They limit our freedom by forcing us to only use one currency option, prohibiting currency competition, I would not consider that a privilege.. When our natural rights to choose for ourselves are infringed, should we thank the person who is initiating the violence? 😕
Do you have a link to perhaps an outline of your concept of "natural rights" and maybe some general social/legal framework hypothesis?
I'd be interested in learning more about it.