April 2, 2013
While most crimes have a guilty party and a victim, there are those in which there is no victim, crimes in which the rights of another individual are not directly violated or portend, this are classified as victimless crimes. To expand more on the definition, look at prostitution while it is a crime for both the solicitor and the one offering the sexual service if both parties are believed to have committed the crime consensually then there is no victim in a court of law. Another illustration of this is drug usage, while it is illegal to carry and consume drugs the crime falls under victimless crime, as long as no one gets hurt due to the effects. Some people argue that this goes against our individual freedom, why should people be punished when taking part in actions that may be detrimental to one self, but do not affect or impede the rights others. Others argue that this “victimless crime” creates more criminals, people who otherwise are law-abiding citizens. In a time where the U.S inmate rate keeps increasing, this victimless crime contributes greatly to new inmates coming in.
Is victimless crime really victimless? In certain violations I believe it is, such as consumption of drugs, the individual was not force to consume or purchase the drugs he himself knew the consequences of his actions, the crime stays victimless if the person who committed the crime does not harm anyone while under the influence because he is not endangering any other individual’s safety. Victimless crimes are still crimes even though for the most part they do not endanger another citizen’s safety there are certain norms and values in our society that can and will be punished. The law endorses a majority right to condemn crimes that are victimless if it the crime is seen to be offensive by the majority of the population then this victimless crime can be punishable and prohibited within our society.
From the very first moment...