I didn't follow the link, but I think somethings like speed limits are needed. Speeding doesn't have a victim, but causing an accident does.
I don't know about that, but I could make an argument that indecent exposure can leave a person harmed for life, depending on the individual that did the exposing.what about undecent exposure?
People will learn accountability real quick in that type of society.And I'm all for stiffer penalties to prevent a victim. I'm not advocating something like The Minority Report, but if a given behavior has been repeatedly shown to increase the likelihood of a crime then I don't mind limiting that behavior. I differentiate between a truly victimless crime and a behavior that is very likely to cause a crime.
Again, it's about prevention for me. What I'm getting from your stance is that you want to wait for things to happen before doing something about it even though it's obvious that the behavior is dangerous.
Didn't prohibition actually cause more crime and problems than what was happening prior to that time? That is an example of the exact opposite of your reasons to protect people with "prevention"One shouldn't have to get shot in the head to realize that Russian roulette is dangerous and shouldn't be played, so to speak. I realize that we were originally discussing public intoxication, but I think the principle is the same. Merely being drunk isn't hurting anyone except the one doing the drinking, but it creates a more dangerous situation and I think it should be limited.
I also hope you don't take my arguments to mean that I don't think victimless crimes exist. I only think that most of the things people think of as "victimless" really aren't, or at least not for long.
Do you have knowledge of this happening? I'd love to see an officer's report on this arrest, it would be thrown out quickly I'd guess. I work in a small town and we handle things a little more casually, I don't think I'd ever see this. It seems like you're suggesting changing the laws to protect against overzealous officers rather than changing the officers?
what about undecent exposure?
For the most part, I agree, but there are exceptions.
Didn't prohibition actually cause more crime and problems than what was happening prior to that time? That is an example of the exact opposite of your reasons to protect people with "prevention"
I say a crime has to have a victim. I also say that I know this is NOT how our laws work. As for the laws to reduce chances, I'm against. I don't want to live in a world were "almost, but not quite breaking the law is illegal." Not always, but frequently such acts could also be called "exercising your Rights". As the example with the child running out into the road. It COULD be that because the car was speeding the child didn't get in front of it, or maybe just got knocked back by the slipstream. Also, bad is part of life. Bad things will happen and giving up freedom to maybe be a little safer, maybe less isn't something I'm interested in.
That is a very subjective in nature. As you may know...12 beers can and will affect different people in different ways and what level of blood-alcohol content makes one person incapable of following the rules of the road may not hinder another persons abilities. Your same argument can be said about tiredness or even anger/hostility. I suppose if the government could figure out a way to measure that, then that too would be illegal at certain levels/limits.Drinking doesn't necessarily cause a dangerous situation, drinking too much and driving a car or interacting with the general public does. Prohibition didn't make that distinction, it just said that alcohol for any reason other than medicinal purposes was illegal. This thread is about victimless "crimes," and drinking alcohol in moderation is completely legal. Drinking a beer doesn't create a dangerous situation, but drinking 12 and getting in your car does.
That is why we need to have stiffer punishment for those crimes, then they wouldn't be in the community to continue down their crime spree. It shouldn't be the governments responsibility to care for individuals because they can't keep it together. Goes back to the same two items of responsibility and accountability. Prohibition was to protect us... Why was Prohibition introduced?To be perfectly honest, I really wouldn't care if they made all drugs legal so long as you're in your own home and only hurting yourself, there is no victim but you. The problem is that drugs like heroine and meth are so addictive that people resort to crime to pay for their habit, or they lose control of their lives and rely on government handouts because they can't keep it together. This is why I don't support the legalization of hard drugs, not because I'm worried about what an individual is doing to himself/herself. Again, my argument is that there is a difference between a truly victimless crime and a behavior that creates a dangerous situation. The Prohibition argument fits neither.
I've had more than my fair share of posts to give my opinion on this topic, but I did want to ask:
Where do your rights end and mine begin? Is there any end to a person's rights? If a person is free to go around acting recklessly and endangering others, what can the potential victims do about it? If a person (not you, I don't know you) thinks it's their right to drive drunk or shoot over my house, what am I to do about it if there isn't a law against it? I don't think the fact that a person will be harshly punished is going to make me or my family feel better if something tragic happens. Do you see it as infringing upon someone's rights if they are told they can't do something such as I described?
I don't see where this type of entrapment is helping...in fact, I have watched a few of these episodes and some of the perps even admit to watching the program. If watching with their own eyes doesn't stop them, the only thing that could possibly do so would be knowing that they would never see day light EVER again. But we encourage this activity by the light sentences... what we have currently is repeat offenders over and over again.
They can't ever do it again, now can they?A couple of questions: How does society punish suicide bombers?
Sure, it's a free country, isn't it?Should it be legal for someone to own an explosive vest so long as no intent of using it against fellow men is displayed?
Is this really a problem that needs addressed? Seems like a far fetched straw of an argument to me.
Sure, it's a free country, isn't it?
The thread is arguing a philosophical absolute. I think my previous questions fits right in; especially because it has been happening for decades in the world and honestly, there are no barriers to keep it from happening here. That is hasn't happened yet in that form is only luck.
And, no, it isn't a free country for the individual.
Where do your rights end and mine begin? Is there any end to a person's rights? If a person is free to go around acting recklessly and endangering others, what can the potential victims do about it? If a person (not you, I don't know you) thinks it's their right to drive drunk or shoot over my house, what am I to do about it if there isn't a law against it? I don't think the fact that a person will be harshly punished is going to make me or my family feel better if something tragic happens. Do you see it as infringing upon someone's rights if they are told they can't do something such as I described?
I'd rather there be a law protecting the child than a law punishing the parent.
Should it be legal for someone to own an explosive vest so long as no intent of using it against fellow men is displayed?
And, no, it isn't a free country for the individual.