Why does the US have so many victimless crime laws?

[Texashiker]

Couple of examples:

Where is the victim in smoking weed?
Where is the victim in not wearing your seatbelt?

Why does the U.S. have laws that prohibit certain things, but there is no victim?

 

[woolfe9999]

Couple of examples:

Where is the victim in smoking weed?
Where is the victim in not wearing your seatbelt?

Why does the U.S. have laws that prohibit certain things, but there is no victim?

There's a difference in your 2 examples. The seatbelt laws apply only where you are on public property. The weed laws apply when you're on private property, in your home, etc. Both are relatively "victimless" (not entirely) but the state doesn't need as compelling a justification to regulate your behavior on public roadways as it does elsewhere, especially behind closed doors.

The fact that not wearing seat belts increases the likelihood of death/serious injury, and that this in turn causes traffic obstruction and tax payer expense (emergency services), as well as increasing everyone else's healthcare costs is sufficient, given that it's a public roadway. These justifications wouldn't be sufficient in a different context.

- wolf

 

[Texashiker]

Both are relatively "victimless" (not entirely) but the state doesn't need as compelling a justification to regulate your behavior on public roadways as it does elsewhere, especially behind closed doors.

What about anti-sodomy laws?

If the act is on your property, in the privacy of your home, and between two or more consenting adults, where is the victim and where is the crime?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

What about anti-sodomy laws?

If the act is on your property, in the privacy of your home, and between two or more consenting adults, where is the victim and where is the crime?

Lawrence v. Texas made anti-sodomy laws illegal, so that's no longer an issue.

 

[rstove02]

I think all these laws came into existance for two reasons:
1) Most lawmakers are rated on the quantity not the quality of laws they create
2) Making it easier for the gov't to come after you if they wish it (watch John Stossel's Illegal Everything) in the form of imprisonment, seisures, fines, anything that impacts your quality of life

 

[nehalem256]

Where is the victim in not wearing your seatbelt?

Why does the U.S. have laws that prohibit certain things, but there is no victim?

The victim is society when we have to pay for your medical bills and for your care when you become an invalid when you dont wear your seatbelt.

I guess if we were willing to say tough luck to such people such laws would not be necessary.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

The short answer is that the legal system is a business now and the creation of new laws, along with the seeming inability to repeal old useless laws, has created a soft police state that makes all of us criminals in some respect or another. You want to know why cops think everyone is a criminal? It's because everyone IS in some respect or another in this country, even the cops (many of whom drink and drive, run drugs, beat their wives, abuse their children, etc) because we have a law for everything and a militant law enforcement business that benefits from seeing more and more people in prison/jail.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Because society is full of control freaks and religious zealots.

 

[woolfe9999]

Because society is full of control freaks and religious zealots.

You're painting with too broad a brush. There are different laws with different purposes that really shouldn't be equated.

 

[woolfe9999]

What about anti-sodomy laws?

If the act is on your property, in the privacy of your home, and between two or more consenting adults, where is the victim and where is the crime?

As AP pointed out, the anti-sodomy laws have been held unconstitutional. And with good reason. There's a world of difference between anti-sodomy laws and seat belt laws.

 

[nehalem256]

As AP pointed out, the anti-sodomy laws have been held unconstitutional. And with good reason. There's a world of difference between anti-sodomy laws and seat belt laws.

Actually I wonder if you could argue that anti-sodomy laws really serve the same purpose as seatbelt laws considering that 1/5 gay men has HIV?

 

[woolfe9999]

Actually I wonder if you could argue that anti-sodomy laws really serve the same purpose as seatbelt laws considering that 1/5 gay men has HIV?

Even if the analogy holds in one sense, it doesn't matter because sex is private and done on private property and behind closed doors. Seat belts are worn or not worn while driving in public and on state property. You need a lot better justification for the former than you do the latter.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You're painting with too broad a brush. There are different laws with different purposes that really shouldn't be equated.

It was a ten-word reply, of course it painted with a broad brush. But I think you'd have a hard time finding too many examples of victimless crime laws that don't boil down to control freakism or religious zealotry.

 

[woolfe9999]

It was a ten-word reply, of course it painted with a broad brush. But I think you'd have a hard time finding too many examples of victimless crime laws that don't boil down to control freakism or religious zealotry.

Fair enough, but the seat belt laws were used as an example by the OP and have been discussed here. I hardly think it's control freakism to regulate behavior on a public roadway in a manner that actually works (in CA increased seat belt compliance from 60% to 90% over night). The behavior isn't exactly all that private or personal, and it's not like it doesn't affect other people.

 

[Texashiker]

As AP pointed out, the anti-sodomy laws have been held unconstitutional.

So what if the anti-sodomy laws were struck down. Why were the laws ever passed to start with?

Another victimless crime is making your own whiskey. Is the lost tax revenue that great that the government has to outlaw the production of whiskey?

Why cant someone make a little moonshine for their own private use?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Fair enough, but the seat belt laws were used as an example by the OP and have been discussed here. I hardly think it's control freakism to regulate behavior on a public roadway in a manner that actually works (in CA increased seat belt compliance from 60% to 90% over night). The behavior isn't exactly all that private or personal, and it's not like it doesn't affect other people.

The reason seat belts don't fit in well is that driving without a seatbelt is quite arguably not a victimless crime, for a number of reasons you probably already know.

But think about the other two examples. Weed? Control freakism (including some industrial protectionism) and religious zealotry. Sodomy? Religious zealotry. Pretty much everything falls into those categories.

 

[woolfe9999]

So what if the anti-sodomy laws were struck down. Why were the laws ever passed to start with?

I think Charles' broad brush explanation probably works best here:

Because society is full of control freaks and religious zealots.

 

[piasabird]

What about all the gangs that are illegally selling drugs and shoot peope on the street killing your child in the cross-fire. Drugs are not a victimless crime. What is happening now is the drug dealer will sell your child heroine claiming there is no weed available. That is a death sentence to most people.

 

[Anarchist420]

The short answer is that the legal system is a business now and the creation of new laws, along with the seeming inability to repeal old useless laws, has created a soft police state that makes all of us criminals in some respect or another. You want to know why cops think everyone is a criminal? It's because everyone IS in some respect or another in this country, even the cops (many of whom drink and drive, run drugs, beat their wives, abuse their children, etc) because we have a law for everything and a militant law enforcement business that benefits from seeing more and more people in prison/jail.

Kind of this. In addition to that, too many people think they can give up liberty for security. It's not clear to me whether the public fear starts it, then economic fascism perpetuates it, or if the corporations start lobbying for more laws before anything is even an issue.

Also, if you have a government, then corporations will be in bed with it... that's a given and the sooner liberals realize that, the better off most will be.

 

[nehalem256]

The reason seat belts don't fit in well is that driving without a seatbelt is quite arguably not a victimless crime, for a number of reasons you probably already know.

But think about the other two examples. Weed? Control freakism (including some industrial protectionism) and religious zealotry. Sodomy? Religious zealotry. Pretty much everything falls into those categories.

Sodomy is arguably not a victimless crime either since 1/5 gay men has HIV. Who do you think pays for their HIV medicine?

 

[woolfe9999]

The reason seat belts don't fit in well is that driving without a seatbelt is quite arguably not a victimless crime, for a number of reasons you probably already know.

But think about the other two examples. Weed? Control freakism (including some industrial protectionism) and religious zealotry. Sodomy? Religious zealotry. Pretty much everything falls into those categories.

Both seat belts and weed are relatively victimless. The victimization of other people is indirect in both cases. If you're a chronic smoker you can get lung cancer and that raises other people's healthcare costs, just like not wearing a seat belt.

The difference is really that one is a private behavior and the other, a public behavior. It's not just a question of *where* it occurs, though that is an important factor. It's also that what you put in your body is highly personal and self-defining. Things like wearing seat belts or what kind of light bulbs you buy, not so much. Those are pedestrian and utilitarian choices.

- wolf

 

[nehalem256]

Both seat belts and weed are relatively victimless. The victimization of other people is indirect in both cases. If you're a chronic smoker you can get lung cancer and that raises other people's healthcare costs, just like not wearing a seat belt.

The difference is really that one is a private behavior and the other, a public behavior. It's not just a question of *where* it occurs, though that is an important factor. It's also that what you put in your body is highly personal and self-defining. Things like wearing seat belts or what kind of light bulbs you buy, not so much. Those are pedestrian and utilitarian choices.

- wolf

I would say any person who defines themselves based on smoking weed has serious issues.

The real difference is you dont have a problem with smoking weed, but think that not wearing your seat-belt is incredibly moronic. That is what determines which one you think should be regulated.

 

[zsdersw]

Sodomy is arguably not a victimless crime either since 1/5 gay men has HIV. Who do you think pays for their HIV medicine?

Their health insurance.. which is provided for by their employer and likely contributed to by the employee directly.

 

[Anarchist420]

Why were the laws ever passed to start with?

It was the State of Texas that passed anti-sodomy laws. I don't think it should be illegal, but most in TX thought it did.

Is the lost tax revenue that great that the government has to outlaw the production of whiskey?

It depends on what time in history you're talking about. Hamilton started the Whiskey Tax to promote big business and to make the poor pay more taxes. The Whigs opposed alcohol because they believed it was immoral. Lincoln reinstated the Whiskey tax to raise Federal revenue... Lincoln did not oppose alcohol for moral reasons as far as I know although many Northerners wanted to purge the world of alcohol, Catholicism, and slavery. Today Whiskey is taxed for the same reason Lincoln taxed it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Most of these "victemless crime" laws are decades or centuries old and harken back to a time where the role of the government was seen as protecting individuals from the allure of the prurient interests. Government was very big in legislating morality in the 19th and much of the 20th century, and once those laws are on the books, getting them off is very difficult. We still have a generation of seniors who were raised under "Reefer Madness" logic in regards to marijuana; that dopeheads are murderous psychopaths hell-bent on raping and murdering America. It's all bullshit based on nothing in reality, and yet marijuana is still classified as a worse drug than cocaine. But in this day and age, who is going to stand up and say marijuana should be legal? The cry from the other side would be enormous; they're selling out your children to drug lords! So we're left with laws based on an outdated morality that can't be challenged because of political pressure.

America. Fuck yeah.