Eliminate Truly Victimless Crimes

         If there is no victim, there is no damage.  If there is no damage, there can be no restitution.  If there can be no restitution, there is nothing about which to determine a verdict.  Under these circumstances there is nothing to constitute a crime!

         Essentially there is only a victim when one person deprives another person of his life, his liberty, or the property he has acquired in the pursuit of happiness, or when one party to a voluntarily entered contract fails to honor the terms of that contract.*  In the first case the State is obligated to initiate action to exact restitution, whereas in the second case the aggrieved party of the contract must initiate action to receive redress.  In either case the State is merely enforcing a higher law beyond its powers to enact or repeal. The State cannot legislate morality, but it can enforce it when immorality is a violation of someone else's rights. 

         Where the State has acted out of turn in criminalizing matters where there are no victims, it must repeal those acts.  This is not to say that it must 'legalize' immoral behavior just because it cannot make it a crime.  The State must be neutral.  However, crimes that are the results of immoral indulgence or carelessness must be adjudicated.  If the driver of a car, whether drunken, drowsy, careless, or stoned, causes harm to someone else, that driver has an obligation for what he has done.  That obligation is not changed by the condition he was in when the harm was caused.  

         I want to say something here about the practice of saying someone is "innocent by reason of insanity".  This an example of illogic at its finest:  Here the State attempts to say there is no victim because the offender was not able to understand the full extent of his offense.  The truth is that they are 'guilty by reason of insanity' and there is a victim that needs to be satisfied.

         This principle of "no victim, no crime" applies equally in the area of protecting someone from himself.  Seat belts, helmets for cyclists, and unassisted suicide are cases in point. I am unalterably opposed to laws requiring a person to protect himself. (This is not to say that I oppose educating people of inherent risks in certain behaviors!)  Laws against suicide are unenforceable, and prosecution for attempted suicide is ludicrous, but physically or emotionally assisting in the death of another is criminal.  I call for the repeal of seat belt and helmet laws currently on the books. Let legal guardians of underage children make the choice for them in accident safety, morality, standards of education, medical treatment, etc. -- living parents of underage children are their natural and automatic guardians, and no laws should state otherwise.

         *The State has enacted laws that impair contracts on every side, instead of enforcing contracts.  The most glaring example of violation of contract is the practice of no-fault divorce.  It is in total contradiction to the typical wedding vows.  There would be no need of laws to determine who could or could not marry, if the vows were merely enforced.  Probably a lot of marriage vows would be different, if the State didn't preempt them by legislation!  If there were no legislation on this issue, I can envision many contract relationships that would be entered that would not be pleasing to the Creator.  Those who made the agreements would have to answer to Him, not to you and me!

(home page)  (previous page)  (next page)