Talk:Victimless crime/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old Cleanup, Article Rewrite & Spelling Talks

I added the cleanup notice. The quality of this article is IMO very low. Victimless crime has little to to with abortion, slavery or killing babies. It's more about drugs, seatbelts, prostitution and polluting. laug 15:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how prostitution - which spreads disease, and pollution - in which everyone inclding wildlife are negatively affected, can be considered victimless crimes. While I can see the arguement that drug use is victimless, you run into the same issues with alcohol use and driving without inhibition. freestylefrappe 04:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Prostitution does not spread disease, legalizing it would remove the factors that are risks in illegal activities like that. Furthermore, even when illegal disease risks are nothing beyond that of very promiscuous people considering the risks involved with sex and delays for STD testing. I believe a crime with a 'victim' is only meant to refer to humans, otherwise killing animals would be a crime in and of itself. It is the effects that a polluted environment and damaged wildlife would have on humanity that are considered, though I still agree, it is far from victimless, just anonymous. Drinking while driving is a victimless crime, but one that should remain illegal because it can easily lead to injury and is a reasonable safeguard to expect that does not limit a person from enjoyment in any serious ways. Using drugs while driving or operating heavy machinery could be as similarly limited as alchohol use, as long as the drugs themselves are consumable in similar ways to alchohol, at bars or at home. Tyciol 07:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting that this page redirect to consensual crime instead. Tavish 09:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Whie the terms may be slightly different in meaning, they are close enough. This article seems more like an editorial, but there may be something to merge back. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:14, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

This article is, frankly, garbage - it isn't even remotely NPOV, plus its poorly written. Unless I get objections to the contrary, next week I will delete this article and replace it with a link to the "consensual crimes" article, which is a much more balanced discussion of the same topic. "Victimless crime" is a more common term than "consensual crime", so perhaps that should be kept as the title of the article. User:Peter_G_Werner - June 19, 2005.

If you can wait until Sunday, I'm planning on rewriting this article to be less NPOV and more on-topic. ArrowmanCoder 04:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These paragraphs don't seem to further the discussion in any way:

• Perversely, this point of view has been embraced by slave-owners, both in the English-speaking West (which abolished slavery in the nineteenth century) and in present-day Africa (e.g., the Sudan).
• A slave, while regarded as belonging to the same species as a normal person, enjoys the legal status of "property" rather than "humanity". As such, it is no violation of his "rights" to whip him, mutilate him, rape him, etc. After all, may not a property owner do what he wishes with his own property? (See property rights.)
• The abolitionist movement stressed the essential humanity of slaves. Notable in this context was Harriet Beecher Stowe's book Uncle Tom's Cabin which sought to prove via literature that a black person could have just as strong moral feelings as a white person. Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn did similar duty, though not so blatantly - read the scene where Jim takes Huck to task for faking his death after a rainstorm. The worry Jim went through, on Huck's behalf.

The only explanation is that it ties in with abortion. I've never heard of slavery described as a "victimliess crime". Without reference sources this seems like original research. -Willmcw 23:45, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I just rewrote the majority of the article and removed the notices. Let me know if this hasn't fixed the problems. I am personally opposed to victimless crime laws, but I did my best to keep bias out of the article ArrowmanCoder 2 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this - it's is a very good rewrite. My only concern now is that "consensual crime" and "victimless crime" remain two separate articles. Really, these are two different terms for the same idea. At some point in the future, someone should consider merging the two articles together, probably keeping "victimelss crime" as the article title (since this is the more common term) and making "consenual crime" redirect to the main article.

In any event, its good that now neither article is a blatantly POV editorial. --Peter G Werner 4 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

To: ArrowmanCoder. Both "marihuana" and "marijuana" are correct spellings. Please check before you edit. -Unknown

My google-fu tells me you're right. Although that quick google also shows that the preferred spelling is with the J, and the article already used the J spelling. In the interests of consistency and readability, shouldn't we use the spelling commonly accepted and already in use in the article? -Unknown

Did you know "marihuana" was also a correct spelling when you edited it out? In the interests of world peace shouldn't we insure we know the facts before we edit? :-) -Unknown

I just wanted to add, that the link to "holocaust denial" under related topics is not only completely unrelated, but also degrades the neutrality of the article and the pro-change stance on the issue in general. Holocaust denial appears nowhere in the article other than this link, and serves only to associate the pro-change side of the issue with a group of people generaly considered to be totaly irrational. I removed the reference, and it would be absolutely absurd if anyone put it back up. -Unkown

Adults

I reworded the example actions at the top of the article to clarify that the acts in question are not always considered "victimless" when the participants have not consented, or are children:

• Adults consuming or selling alcohol (Prohibition)
• Adults consuming or selling marijuana and other banned substances (Illegal drugs)
• Adults consensually engaging in sex for money (Prostitution)
• Adults consensually engaging in certain types of sexual acts (Sodomy law)

These changes were reverted without explanation. Now I'm putting them back in, this time with my explanation. --Serge 18:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Not everyone thinks that minors should be prevented from engaging in some of these activities, which is why I removed the adult references. It should also be noted that the above acts are implicitly consensual. If the sex isn't consensual, it by definition is not prostitution or sodomy; it's rape. ArrowmanCoder 03:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Just because there are some people who don't believe that minors should be prevented from engaging in some of these activities is irrelevant to the fact that prohibition generally means adults are prohibited from participating in the relevant act, not children. When only those who are younger than a given society's age of consent are prohibited from using or buying a given substance, or participating in prostition for that matter, the vast majority does not consider that prohibition, or, more to the point, a victimless crime. It's an important distinction, and I'm putting it back in. --Serge 03:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Upon further research, I will relent that the adult/minor issue is a varied one, and agree that we should include information about adult behavior versus juvenile behavior. I'm still not truly convinced that there should be a distinction, but I'll leave it as is since there is discussion about the adult/youth issue further in the article.

I understand your reservations, so thanks for being reasonable, ArrowmanCoder, I'll remember that. The main issue is that consent is a critical factor in determining whether a given action is "victimless" - certainly non-consensual sex, for example, is one of the most universally recognized true crimes. This is why the issue of age of consent -- and hence, the adult/minor issue -- is so relevant here. Now if you could remember to sign your posts! --Serge 05:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It's past one in the morning from where I'm posting. Forgive my unsigned posts :p And thanks for being reasonable yourself and not letting this turn into a flame war. I do think the article has propered in the interim. ArrowmanCoder 05:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

What about things like sadomasochism, or sexual acts? Just as the law says that children can't consent, it also says that adults can't consent to these activities, so by this logic they aren't consensual crimes either. Consensual crime is something that the participants agree to, but the law says they can't - if we take the law's definition of consent, then the problem is that most of these things aren't going to be consensual.

In general, I disagree with the paragraph "Note that the concept typically applies to adults, and specifically not to minors who have not yet reached the age of consent." In particular, "selling drugs or sex to a minor may be considered not victimless, since the minor is not old enough to consent." doesn't really make sense, since we can't be sure that a child will always be harmed simply by not being old enough. The same argument could be made for other victimless crimes, eg, saying that those who engage in BDSM are harmed by it. Mdwh 22:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The law does not say adults cannot consent to these prohibited activities, it says they cannot participate in them. There is a big difference. With respect to minors, it says they are simply unable to consent, because they are too immature to make a decision regarding themselves with respect to certain activities (such as signing a legal contract). When an adult sells sex, for example, to another adult, consent is not an issue; clearly there is legal consent by both parties. The whole point of victimless crime is that it prohibits activities in which all parties have legally consented. That is not the case when the parties involve participants below the age of consent. Whether the minor is actually harmed is not relevant. The point is, there is no way to know. A person who is of the age of consent, by definition, is not legally harmed if he consents. If an adult, for example, consents to having another adult hit him in the face, is not legally harmed by such a hit. Sure he may be "harmed", in more general terms, but the issue is whether there is legal harm. --Serge 05:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not law problem, it's philosophy problem. If someone agreed deal, he is not harmed, because he is aware of that he is doing, or he is not aware at all and can’t harmed as person. By this way of thinking you can also say, then doing something dangerous without license is also not victimless crime, because someone who don't have license, cannot sing this type of legal contract. Legal age is something relative, which was different through the ages (and now relatively high) and philosophy can not accept it.

Sorry for my English85.89.162.60 15:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Victimless crimes?

The following list was just added. I have trouble with most of them. Most of these are not normally considered victimless crimes, so far as I know.

• Parking anywhere

When parking on property in violation of the owner/agent's permission (in a red zone, beyond the allotted time, etc.), that's a property rights and/or contract violation; not a victimless crime.

• Littering

Property rights violation; not a victimless crime (the owner of the property littered upon is the victim, be it a private owner or the public).

• Breastfeeding in public

Agreed.

• Nudity in public

If visible to children, some may argue that they are harmed, and hence victims. But personally, I agree.

• Pornography

Agreed (unless children were used to create it)

• Loitering

Agreed.

• Allowing minors to drink, smoke, and bear arms (as in Russia and Texas)

When only minors are prohibited from engaging in a given activity, it's generally not considered a victimless crime.

--Serge 04:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Loitering can also be seen as a property rights violation. Store owners don't have to allow people to stay on their property. In fact, store owners often don't want people just 'hanging out'. Aside from legal liabilities (the loiterers injure themselves and sue the owner) seeing the dregs of society just hanging out will make people not want to come to the store. Also, large crowds in a store not actively purchasing can make it an unpleasant environment for those that are buying items. I've edited to show this point.

Serge Issakov, you are missing the point. The argument about standard of consent required is completely separate from argument about criminalization of activity in which full consent of all parties has been established. Underage, sick or uninformed, there could be many requirements to establish consent. And there should be a paragraph in the article describing that. But "victimless crime" is a concept about validity of criminalizing an activity in which full consent of all parties has been established (to whatever standard). *Alex*

Despite agreeing that minors should be included in victimless crimes, i have to say that was not a tasteful edit. You removed and conflated some examples, and unnecessarily changed the order around (the last is not so bad). I would fully agree with a section on the adult/minor controversy, but I have a problem with just changing things willy-nilly (which I admit I've done before. Secondly, you seem to be involved enough to sign your edits, why not get a username? ArrowmanCoder 03:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Adult/Minor Reverts

If you disagree with the adult/minor issue, that's fine. However, please don't continue to revert without explanation. I've given a reason why the article should remain with the adults in the listing; you have given little to no justification for your reverts. If this continues I will ask for page protection and/or arbitration. I would be much happier to discuss the issue and achieve consesus.ArrowmanCoder 19:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The argument about standard of consent required is completely separate from argument about criminalization of activity in which full consent of all parties has been established. Underage, sick or uninformed, there could be many requirements to establish consent. And there should be a paragraph in the article describing that. But "victimless crime" is a concept about validity of criminalizing an activity in which full consent of all parties has been established (to whatever standard). *Alex*

Merge with victimless crime?

Shouldn't this article be merged with consensual crime? Its first words are "Consensual crime, or Victimless crime is...". Let's put up tags and start a vote. I'll do that in a couple of days if nobody objects (or does it first). Jules LT 21:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Major editorial change

I separated out victimless from consensual. They are different. I therefore took a shotgun and loaded all the victimless material back into this page. I made no substantive change to any of the material. I leave sorting out the obvious NPOV in most of the content to others with more patience. The whole page should be completely rewirtten but this is low on my priorities so I leave it to others to do the job now that all the content can be seen together on a single page. David91 16:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Statutory Rape

Statutory rape is currently listed as an example of a "victimless crime". Yet this seems like the quintessential counter-example to a "victimless crime", which, by definition, involves consenting participants. In statutory rape, at least one of the participants is a minor, legally unable to consent. Therefore, it is not an activity involving consenting participants, and therefore not an example of a victimless crime. For this reason, I'm removing it. Before any reverts, please provide basis for it, preferably bonafide sources that refer to "statutory rape" as a victimless crime. --Serge 05:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak for English law and not other laws. The relevant charge is "unlawful sexual intercourse" and that will normally be appropriate if the girl in fact consents to intercourse but she is under the statutory ages in ss5 and 6 Sexual Offences Act 1956. If she does not consent, then one of the abusive charges of "indecent assault", etc. would be preferred. So the offence is specifically used when, in fact, the girl is not a victim by her standards, but is a victim by society's standards. However, the law also provides that the girl cannot be prosecuted whether as a joint principal or an an accessory to the offence. The policy of the law is that whoever the law protects cannot commit the relevant offence even though he or she may have incited, conspired and procured the commission of the offence. What is the universally accepted definition of a "victimless offence". If you adopt something like a crime committed against oneself, then where do you place consensual unlawful sexual intercourse. Now I did not make up the list on this page. Its source appears to be this book "Ain't Nobody's Business", which is to my mind highly dubious in international terms because it conflates victimless crimes with crimes committed consensually. However, if you treat prostitution as victimless and the punter but not the prostitute commits the offence, what is your argument for treating unlawful sexual intercourse differently? David91 06:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We must differentiate between "common consent" and "statutory consent" (for lack of better terms). Common consent is relevant, legally, to differentiate between abusive rape and consensual sex. Statutory consent is relevant to determine between legally consensual sex and statutory rape (or "unlawful sexual intercourse"). I don't understand your question. How can the punter but not the prostitute commit "the offence"? Last I checked, it takes two to tango... --Serge 06:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

English law does not differentiate between "common consent" and "statutory consent". The law distinguishes between subjective and objective states of mind, i.e. where the person actually has the state of mind, and where the state of mind is attributed to the person for some reason. In this instance, there is subjective consent so this criterion selects the appropriate charge and distinguishes between the offences. My question is simple:

What is your definition of a victimless crime"?

In English law, there is no criminal offence of prostitution as such. No matter who does what in the act of sex, only the punter kerb crawls and seeks out the prostitute. I am not, you understand, speaking for the U.S. where the law may be different. So if English law does not prosecute the prostitute in the kerb crawling example and she was a willing participant by standing on the street, this is a victimless offence? So if English law prosecutes the man but not the under-age girl who was a willing participant, what is the legal difference? David91 06:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For my definition of victimless crime, I'll go with the current opening sentence of this article. From what you say, it sounds to me that receiving payment for sex is not a crime at all in England, but paying for it is. In that case, paying for sex would be a victimless crime, since no one's rights are violated (threat of violation constitutes violation) by such payment, assuming the prostitute is of the age of consent. Now, if the prostitute is below the age of consent, then her rights are violated by the statutory rape, and that is a crime. Does that answer your question? -- Serge 07:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to debate politics, prositution should be legalised because the state is denying itself taxation revenue from the sale of sex. Thus, we could argue that prostitution is not victimless because the tax-paying community is being victimised by the non-declaration of this income. David91 07:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe prostitution should be legalized simply because it is a victimless crime (again, assuming only adults are involved). As far as denying the state tax revenue, I believe that's generally a good thing, because the more revenue the state gets, the worse off the people overall, but that's an entirely separate topic. From a libertarian perspective, prostitution should be legal and untaxed. Second best is legal and taxed. Worst of all is illegal. --Serge 07:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

But do you take my point that there are victims, namely the tax-paying public who have to pay more tax because money is not collected from prostitution and punters who are infected with STDs because the medical condition of the willing parties is not controlled. Similarly, there are victims to speeding offences because speeding is a major cause of accidents causing injuries and there is a substantial cost to the state in having to maintain emergency services and hospitals which requires more tax revenue to maintain and benefit payments to those injured who cannot work, etc. It all depends on how you define victim. David91 07:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point. I strongly disagree with it. I reject the premise underlying your point, that the state has certain fixed costs which must be paid for one way or the other, so if tax revenue is not picked up in one area (e.g., prostitution), then it must be picked up by another (in general, the tax-paying public). This static view ignores the dynamic feedback-loop inherent in government and tax collecting (the more taxes, the more government spending, the more taxes, etc.). Further, you are confusing victims of illegal prostitution with victims of prostitution in general. It is the illegality of prostitution that drives it underground, and makes self-regulation unlikely. Legal prostitution (Amsterdam, Nevada) is generally much "cleaner" than illegal prostitution. The speed example is completely different. Making speeding illegal does not foster an environment that creates more victims, like making prostition illegal does. Also, a speeder inherently poses a direct threat to all those in his immediate vicinity. A prostitute or punter poses no such direct inherent risk to anyone. --Serge 21:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Violation of driving laws

I just removed this example of a "victimless crime":

• Violation of driving laws (eg, breaking the speed limit), where no accidents are caused.

I've never heard of anyone referring to such crimes as victimless. It is generally understood that threat of harm constitutes harm, and breaking driving laws, including breaking the speed limit, and driving under the influence, constitutes threat of harm to those in the path of the driver. While some contend that a similar thing can be argued with respect to drug use (and, hence, sale of drugs), research shows that drug use that actually leads to harm to others has a much smaller correlation than does breaking driving laws. In fact, it is the activities spawned by the black market of drugs that is linked to crime, much stronger than the drug use itself.

Further, driving a motor vehicle on public roadways is legally considered a privilege subject to obeying the rules of the road that govern travel on public roadways, and is not a fundamental right. Hence, violating those laws is a violation of rights akin to trespass, the owner of the roads being the victim in this case.Please discuss/defend here before attempting to revert. --Serge 06:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not defending this list, merely seeking understanding of your POV. For the most part, road traffic laws are laws of expediency, fixing somewhat aribtrary limits on the way in which people drive. Such laws have a social utility by reducing the level of danger road users represent to others. Now, take a particular day in the car. Were all laws obeyed? Except in the most abnormal situations, the answer is likely to be no because most people drive to the standards required by traffic conditions. So when no-one was injured, who was the victim? Are we identifying hypothetical individuals who were endangered rather than the real people who seem not to have been injured? David91 06:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Another classic example is shooting a rifle into the air in a city. Odds are, the bullet will go up and down and not harm anyone. But the odds are high enough that someone may be hit, and that threat constitutes victims, victims that do not exist in, say, a rural setting where it is known no one is around. This is why shooting a gun in the city, even if no one is hit, is a crime, and not a victimless crime. The key concept is "threat of harm constitutes harm". This is classic libertarian philosophy, as I understand it, and the way victimless crime has traditionally been treated as far as I know. --Serge 06:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are not providing anything relevant in terms of law or criminology. Political philosophy is interesting because it indirectly informs the definition of laws by legislatures, but what does libertarianism have to do with whether a driving offence is or is not victimless? Either there is a victim or there is not in legal terms. What you might want the law to be or not to be does not change what the law is. So, if you want to identify a victim for these purposes, could anyone sue for the hypothetical harm or injury? Please let us have a debate on the law which is the basis of this page. David91 06:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What does law or criminology have to do with this page? The term "victimless crime" is not a legal concept. It's a philosophical concept, primarily libertarian in nature. What is and isn't legal is a legal issue. What should and should not be legal is a philosophical one. The concept of "victimless crime" is used, again, primarily by libertarians, to provide philosophical basis for why a given action should be legal or prohibited, based on the notion that if the act is victimless, it should not be a crime (and if it is, then it's a "victimless crime"). --Serge 07:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

To see if there is any common ground between us so that we can try to agree on what should or should not be on this page, please offer the working definition of "victimless crime" that you are using to decide whether topics should or should not be on this page and its verifiable authority. David91 07:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I already said I was using the definition at the start of the article (before you changed it, which I just reverted, at least until it is discussed further here): "A victimless crime is behavior which is forbidden by law, but which does not directly harm nor violate the rights of any specific person, though some may claim it harms society as a whole." There might be some disagreement as to what exactly constitutes "direct harm to any specific person", but that does not make any behavior clearly outside the scope of this definition a potential "victimless crime". Common sense dictates that endangering others is harm, though this is not an absolute. For example, driving a motor vehicle arguably endangers others. So, as with many aspects of law, there is an aspect of reasonableness that must apply. This is inherent in our driving laws, for example. Driving 50 mph is reasonable - it is not unreasonably endangering others (at least on certain roads). But driving 150 mph is generally considered endangering others. This is also the basis of laws against drunk driving. Having one drink is generally not considering too much. But downing a liter of vodka and then getting behind the wheel is considered harmful. In each case the law specifies at what point behavior becomes unreasonably dangerous to others, and, hence, legally harmful. Shooting a gun into the air in a city falls into the same category. It's putting those in the immediate vicinity who may fall victim to speeding, drunk driving, or a falling bullet, in unreasonable danger. Such behavior constitutes direct harm to specific persons (those in the immediate vicinity who are endangered by the behavior) and is not a "victimless crime" by the definition provided here. --Serge 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For example, Eliot Spitzer at [1] evidences that the retail and second tier markets for tickets to entertainment and sporting events in New York is riddled with corruption, bribery and tax evasion. So can we agree that ticket scalping is not a victimless crime and is correctly excluded from the list because there has been major harm caused despite the existence of laws regulating the market for 77 years? David91 08:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel that it should be on this page - in fact, I believe that this is one of the most important examples. The argument "It is generally understood that threat of harm constitutes harm" is the whole *point* of the "victimless crime" debate - that something is a crime, despite lack of victims, because of the possible threat. If you take the logic that things like threat of harm or indirect effects count as real harm, then I fail to see how any crime can be a victimless crime.

Also, this is a good example of a crime which is victimless, but wouldn't count as a consensual crime (the term seems a bit meaningless in this case). Mdwh 12:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Spitzer takes great trouble to identify the victims at every stage of the corrupt processes he uncovered but at least we can agree that this is a good example of the argument of what constitutes a victimless crime. David91 14:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Scalping tickets is not a victimless crime, if the tickets were sold with specific terms that are being violated by the scalping (reselling, or reselling at a higher price). The specific victim is the original seller of the ticket - it's breach of contract. Specific victim, direct harm. It's not a victimless crime. Now, if the tickets were originally sold without restriction, then the scalping victimizes no one. No crime, victimless or otherwise. --Serge 22:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So what is an example of a victimless crime, but one which wouldn't count as consensual? Why are there still many examples on the list which could cause a possible threat to others (eg, drugs/alcohol, "Possession of devices that may be used in committing crimes")? Perhaps there is a difference I am not seeing here.

I would say that many things are going to be a matter of opinion whether or not there are or may be "victims" - perhaps it would be better just to give the list of "Examples of things which may be considered victimless"? Mdwh 00:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, if that's what you're asking, I don't know that there is a difference between victimless and consensual crimes. I cannot think of an example of a victimless crime that is not consensual, since the only reasonable definition of victimless crime that I'm aware of implies consent of all parties involved. I agree reasonable people could disagree on what constitutes a victim and what doesn't. And same with consent. As far as I know, the concept of victimless crime does not rest upon having a clear and undisputed definition of "victim", or "consent" for that matter. However, whatever factors determine whether someone is a "victim" of a given behavior, I would think the same ones would determine whether there was "consent".

Further, what determines whether a given behavior is a "victimless crime" is, 1) the behavior is criminally prohibited, and 2) there is no specific victim whose rights are violated (or threatened to be violated) by that behavior. Consent (or lack thereof) is one of the factors that determines whether rights were violated (or threatened). At least that's how I understand it. Any other definition/explanation of "victimless" or "consensual" crime is nonsensical to me, but maybe I've been missing something for the twenty years I've been reading, writing and thinking about this off and on.

The reason issues like drugs/alcohol are still on the list is because sale or use of drugs or alcohol alone is not a direct harm or direct threat to anyone's rights. Now, if you drink alcohol and get behind the wheel, then, if you've had enough alcohol, your behavior does begin to constitute a direct threat to those around you. Exactly how much alcohol you have to drink to constitute becoming a reasonable threat is of course disputable, and various jurisdictions draw the line at different points. But, if you simply use, or simply sell (to an adult), that behavior alone does not constitute a direct threat to anyone's rights, hence, making that behavior alone illegal is creating a victimless crime. If there was a drug known to have a reasonable likelihood of turning someone into a homocidal maniac, then, yes, use and even sale of such a drug could be construed as a direct threat to others. --Serge 05:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider a consensual crime to be one where those who might normally be considered "victims" have consented. I'd consider a victimless crime but not consensual to be one where there are no victims in the eyes of the law, and hence the question of whether the victims consented or not is meaningless. So examples of the latter would be possession of drugs or guns, and I also believe violation of driving laws, since there are no victims (yes, there may have been a risk, but ultimately there were no victims). But as soon as we extend "victim" to include possible risks and threats, it's hard to see that any crimes are really victimless. Mdwh 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "possible" risks and threats and "reasonably likely" risks and threats. It's up to the law to make the distinction, and there are gray areas, but, the distinction should be made. It's why driving 50 mph is legal, but 100 mph is not - the threshold has been crossed. Once the threshold has been crossed, and the activity in question is considered to be "reasonably likely" to violate the rights of others, it ceases to be victimless. It's also why prostitution in general is victimless, but consensual unprotected sex by an AIDS victim who does not inform the partner is not victimless, even if the partner happens to not get infected. --Serge 21:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

David's rewrite

I just reverted David91's "rewrite" comprised of five changes on 23 January 2006. His changes reflect a POV that is original, as far as I can tell, regarding the meaning of "victimless crime". These are my primary concerns.

• David's opening sentence is: "A victimless crime is behavior which is forbidden by law, but which does not directly harm nor violate the rights of any specific person, though it may harm society as a whole." The phrase "though it may harm society as a whole" implies a POV that assumes "society as a whole" is an entity that may be "harmed". This assumption is disputed by many, and is not NPOV.
• The second and third sentences constitute pure opinion: "It represents a policy tool for lawyers to discuss the scope and purpose of the criminal law. It is a primary topic for criminologists who monitor and discuss the effectiveness of criminal laws..." Original, but most definitely not NPOV.
• The new "Discussion" section is pure original. It belongs on this Talk page, if anywhere, but certainly not in the main article.
• David's paragraph on adultry and bigamy is almost pure personal opinion and has no place in an encyclopedia. It speaks for itself:

Adultery is not a crime in the Western democracies, but most monogamous states prohibit bigamy which is an abuse of the system of marriage. In criminalizing the act of going through additional marriage ceremonies while there is a subsisting marriage, the state is upholding the family values that inform the locally accepted definition of marriage. It is irrelevant that all those involved in any one ceremony may have consented to extend the relationship into polygamy. The state has a prevailing culture and determines that the morality it represents is so fundamental to the well-being of the society, that enforcement by law is justified. In fact, the majority of prosecutions are made in cases where the bigamist deceived both "spouses", i.e. in cases where there is an identified victim. Similarly, in criminalising incest, society is making a judgment about the consequences of family relationships both in social terms and for the purposes of eugenics. That the relationship may be between consenting legal adults who have ensured that children cannot result from the sexual activity or where at least one partner is sterile does not prevent their behavior from offending the current codes of morality. However, the majority of states have decriminalized homosexuality and other non-standard lifestyles not affecting biological reproduction because the cultures have evolved to the point where the majority accept different forms of sexuality and there will be no children at risk of genetic abnormaity. These crimes became genuinely victimless and, with no-one to protect, the state abolished the laws as unnecessary.

• The section on "Examples which may not be victimless crimes depending on the definition used" is nonsensical. It basically says that if one defines victimless crime as broadly as "[whenever the behavior] depends on the given offence causing identifiable harm, whether physical, economic or social, to the community", then no crime is truly victimless. Indeed, he is correct, which is precisely why no one uses that definition of "victimless crime" - it would be pointless, as would be covering a pointless and unused definition in an encyclopedia article.

For these reasons, I reverted all of David91's changes from 23 January 2006. --Serge 22:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In particular, I agree with what you say about the "it may harm society as a whole" issue. The question is, can someone provide an example of something which causes harm to no one, but somehow harms society? To me, this sounds too much like claims people make of victimless acts such as homosexuality or drugs, claiming that they somehow "harm society" nonetheless. Mdwh 00:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is not to dispute it here, but that the claim that "society" can be harmed without harming specific individuals is widely disputed, and, so, making a statement based on that claim being true is not NPOV. --Serge 00:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And yes, certainly agree with you about the POV in the adultery/marriage paragraph. Just to add on a factual note, I believe that adultery is in fact illegal in some US states, possibly even if consensual (see adultery and open marriage). Mdwh 00:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The material that I added was a test. For example, I included the Hansard debate in which the issue of victimless/not victimless was the basis of justifying what the penalty should be for speeding offences. Hence, the British government uses the concept to set policy in the laws it enacts. I included an Australian report which calculates the costs to Australian society for conventional and victimless crimes because no rational government can enact laws unless it knows what the real costs are in the law as it stands and the law as it is proposed to be. But the key test was the Spitzer report. I carefully researched the Libertarian Party website and discovered that their policy is to oppose Spitzer's report and its characterisation of ticket scalping as having victims. The NPOV response to verified authority is not to remove it but to indicate that others dispute it. Hence, the NPOV response to my inclusion of the Spitzer report would have been to cite the LP site as evidence that the conclusions in Spitzer's report are disputed, and explain the Libertarian objection as a balancing critique of my referenced statement. But Serge simply removed all of this material wholesale, demonstrating that Serge has no real interest in what happens outside America nor how other academic disciplines might characterise victimless crimes. In short, Serge's whole attitude seems to be that it is POV to disagree with anything written here. Thus, if it is believed that one, or possibly two, US states may have criminalised adultery, identify them as minor exceptions to the general rule that no Western (and Christian) democracy has the crime of adultery in contrast with Islamic states where adultery is criminalised (see Zina). I suggest that you begin to produce verifiable authority of proper standing for your assertions or they are as worthless as the unreferenced assertions that I made, and therefore just as liable to be removed as mine. David91 06:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

David, believe me, if I felt I could edit your contributions to make them NPOV with a reasonable amount of effort, I would have, for that would be my preference. But, frankly, that would have been too large a task to undertake. I chose to revert all of it, and explain why in this section. We all have the same obligation to write from a NPOV. Your work is not lost. There is nothing to prevent you, or anyone else, from editing it to be NPOV and putting it back in. I would applaud any such effort. --Serge 06:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

At present, I have other priorities which I diverted from when I saw this page, but I will consider how best to respond to what I take to be the embedded misinformation and POV in this page over the next week or so. Thus, you have a period of time in which "to get your ducks in a row", i.e. to collect verfied sources for all the assertion on this page that you wish to defend. When I return, I will cite chapter and verse on every word of material that I write. I suggest that you are able to do the same. If that happens, we will have no problem in agreeing what goes on the page and what is removed, and all can proceed in a calm and rational manner to a consensus. David91 07:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no responsibility to provide sources for assertions that others have made in this or any other article. If you have a specific NPOV dispute, please explain exactly what it is here, per the Wikipedia guidelines, and I will address them as best as I can. I will do the same with anything that you contribute, as I've done in this section. You might considering making your proposed changes on this talk page, or in a sandbox. --Serge 16:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note in passing. Our job is not to define what we think a victimless crime is. Our job is to create a verifiable summary of reliable sources using the neutral point of view. NPOV calls on us to include all notable points of view about a topic. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?

I'm removing the NPOV neutrality dispute claim. It should be coupled with an explanation here on this Talk page regarding what the neutrality issues allegedly are. There is no such explanatation, so I'm removing it. --Serge 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Serge is using this page to represent a completely NPOV stance associated with the Libertarian movement. On this talk page, he denies that law and criminology have any role or relvance in discussing what constitutes a victimless crime and will not produce a working definition, verifiably sourced. On the page itself, rhe emoves material that is verifiably sourced as relevant and accurate. Almost all the material on this page is either legally wrong or politically biased and it should all be rewirtten so that it meets a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view standard. David91 01:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

First, if this article is NPOV, it has nothing to do with me, for none of the content is mine. How I could be using an article to "represent a completely NPOV stance" without providing any of the content (not counting a few minor edits) is beyond me. What I say on this talk page is irrelevant to whether the article itself is NPOV, so I won't debate that point. I did remove your biased material, for the specific reasons provided above. That's a separate issue, which should be discussed in that section. One person's opinion that "all the material on this page is either legally wrong or politically biased and it should all be rewritten" does not make it so. I won't revert the NPOV tag again, but I sure don't see a justification for keeping it here. Perhaps someone else will remove it. --Serge 04:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone disputing the neutrality of an article is supposed to create a new section on the talk page where you "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." I see nothing close to resembling a clear and exact explanation regarding which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. I see no suggestions. While some active and bold actions were taken, these were shown to have strong NPOV issues themselves (above). I'm not saying this article is or is not NPOV. I'm saying there is no clear and exact explanation about why it allegedly is not NPOV, and, therefore, there is no basis for the NPOV tag. Based on this, I urge that someone be bold and remove it. --Serge 05:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user removed the NPOV tag, and then User:BlueGoose put it back in. That was almost 11 hours ago. Since there is no clear and exact explanation for the placement of the NPOV tag, per Wiki NPOV dispute guidelines, I'm removing it. No one can address the alleged NPOV "problem" if no one bothers to explain what they think it is. --Serge 18:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this should go, but it seems to fit here. This statement needs a citation: "Interestingly, one of the very arguments used by proponents of drug legalisation is a reason why drugs are kept illegal, though advocates of tougher drug laws rarely admit it: By keeping a large number of drug users behind bars, they are kept out of the workforce, artificially lowering the unemployment rate." It is either stating a fact (which should be cited) or is opinion and should be deleted. --Athaler 14:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement that you mention is definitely an opinion as opposed to fact. It may be valid to cite it as a claim commonly presented by those in favour of decriminalizing recreational drugs, but only if a valid reference can be obtained attributing it as such. As a statement of fact, it has no place in this article, and I am therefore removing it. Ultiam 01:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples

The examples section appears to be rife with original research. "Prostitution" is one of the crimes which defines victimless crime in general usage. I've never heard of the possesion of plutonium referred to as one, nor sedition, etc. Please folks, let's not just make this stuff up. Unless we have sources for the "examples" section, maybe we'd better just remove it. -Will Beback 23:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

While I agree some sources would be nice, if something is in law, even preventatively and not commonly done in violation of it unnoticed, it would still constitute one. So, is it legal everywhere to possess plutonium, nerve gas, fireworks, and (I'd like to add this) guns/firearms regardless of who you are? These are all dangerous things made illegal not because their possession causes harm, but that there is a high potential risk for danger that would be irresponsible for government authorities to turn their heads to it. While the others are more common, giving mention to these isn't necessarily bad. They too share no victims, even if rare.--Tyciol 07:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a wonderful exercise in original research. You, an editor, are deriving conclusions. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. It isn't to draw conclusions about what experts might say if they gave the matter their attention. -Will Beback 05:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm noted. I noticed weapons are already added right after fireworks/plutonium/nerve gas, although are accidents a crime? Perhaps accidental risk of injury could be a separate category also including guns. I know negligence and manslaughter are crimes too, but generally they are not ones of intent so a separate listing could help distinguish it. Now, I'm not drawing any conclusions here. Possession of dangerous substances are crimes as far as I know (is the citation you want proof that it's illegal or restricted to possess them?), and while the three things given there are pretty arbitrary, there's nothing wrong or biased about giving examples. I'm not sure why the person picked them, but feel free to add any of your own... Tyciol 07:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Defining 'victim' regarding children, and the influences of proliferation of child porn

Simple possession of data such as child pornography. --User:216.15.119.166

Possession of child pornography is generally not considered since such possession is understood to be the root cause of victimizing children for pornography.--Serge Issakov

In response to these recent changes, I am brought to the attention of the policy of this article to exclude any crime relating to children not legally able to give consent. I am wondering, how do we define victims in this instance? Regarding possession of child pornography, if a child is not made aware of a certain person's possession of the pictures, they should not be scarred by the instance. Their privacy is harmed, yes, but that doesn't actually hurt them until they know of it. Does the article define a victim more in an aspect of their rights rather than their wellbeing?

I also do not know where the idea that possession being the root cause of victimizing children came from. While in theory some people may abuse a child solely for monetary gain or fame, it's unrealistic to believe that such people would not have commited child molestation without the belief that others would view their work.

Furthermore, freely distributed child pornography (not bought) would take out the factor of sales, leading only to infamy as the motivation for the molestation. Considering the expensive undertaking, risks of abducting a child, and giving out evidence of the illegal act freely, only the truly insane would do such a thing. Such people would likely be molesting kids anyway, so what is served through stopping the spread of their movies?

Allowing the spread, besides curbing the appetites of child molesters and rapists through allowing them to engage in fantasy, would give the movie out to the public at large. Through doing this, people may recognize the faces or bodies of the molester or the child, which could be used to pursue justice. I'm sure there must be some wiki article where I could bring this article to, as resolving it there makes more sense than here. I would ask though, that whatever decision is reached at the relevant wiki, be reflected here?

--Tyciol 07:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Possession of child pornography is generally not considered since such possession is understood to be the root cause of victimizing children for pornography

Actually, this largely depends on your exact definition of "child pornography":

• • • • In many states and countries (Spain, for instance), a person is allowed to have sex at an age below 18 - yet the majority of film/photo porn makers seem to require their actors and models be "over 18". So, if the kid is legally considered able to consent to having sex at a younger age in their area, why is taping or photographing it automatically wrong in some areas? And should it be illegal, or is it immoral, if in their country, the age of consent is 13, but the place it's being viewed has an Age of Consent that is higher?

• • • • If the "child" in question is clearly well past puberty, past the Age of Consent in the place they live in, AND fictional (as in some animated hentai and illustrated dojinshi from Japan featuring high school or middle school students usually no younger than 14, which is past the Age of Consent in some countries and apparently even in some U.S states, though I'm not sure of Japan's exact AoC), i.e. there was no real, actual underage child forced to make the porn, must it still legally count as child porn, since it's easily argued that it could be victimless, with no real children being harmed in the process of making it? Is it a lesser offence, or equal?

• • • • • Additionally, what of cases in live action where the actors or models are actually above the AoC and allowed to take part in porn, but in the story or picture, are playing much younger characters who would not be "legal" yet in many areas? Is it child porn because the representation is meant to be that of someone underage by some's standards, or is it not, simply because the people directly depicting the characters are above AoC? And what about explicit films based on alleged "true stories" of underage (or at least, underage in some or most places) sex, but which still feature only actors which are above the AoC (or again, animated or illustrated characters that weren't directly modeled off of the body of a real kid)? Is that "child porn", or isn't it?

• • • • And most of all: Should we count written, completely textual porn in this? If so, must it describe real people or real (as in, they supposedly actually happened) acts, as undoubtedly some teens' online journal entries do? Or do we extend the definition to include any described sexual act with a minor, even if both the situation and the character are completely fictional? And at what age do we make the cutoff, considering that the Age of Consent varies by a LOT from nation to nation and sometimes even from area to area within the same nation (as is the case with the U.S.)? Many areas in the U.S. have an Age of Consent set at 17 or 18; the U.K's is 16; Spain's is apparently 13. Additionally, the time frame of the story might be important, should one choose to consider it. If the character is a member of an ancient culture, or of a medieval European culture, or a modern Spaniard, they could legally have sex at 13, so are we allowed to describe sexual acts between 13-year-olds in a story that takes place in a time and place where that's the legal AoC, even if said story is potentially going to be viewed in states in the U.S. where the legal Age of Consent is older than 13, or does it suddenly become "child porn" if it's crossed (whether literal or metaphorical) border lines into areas where the AoC is set higher? And if the originator lives in the same area where the AoC is lower, do they suddenly become a criminal if their material ends up in a place where the AoC is set higher? And not to mention, if it involves only fictional characters in fictional situations - who is being "harmed"?

So, some select materials that some would consider a form of child porn under their current laws or social or personal norms, might be easily be argued as being "victimless" by other people. I'm always interested in debates like this, since they apply easily to three of my big interests - fan fiction (a lot of which, understandably, is erotic in nature, and some of which may or may not feature characters that would be considered underage; although most authors simply avoid this conflict by saying something like "I know the world ended up destroyed when they were 14 in the original story and they all died, but in this story that didn't happen and they're all 18 now!"), anime, and manga.

For the record, I am trying to look at this from a completely objective, analytical standpoint - I am not trying to provoke a flame war in which people, assuming that I believe almost nothing can be counted as child porn, decide to assume I'm some sort of pedarest. :P I am merely hoping for an interesting debate and possible inclusion of such reasoning (which I know I've seen some of before, even though I do not currently have any specific references for it). After all, porn that is written and completely fictional can be considered, I'm sure some would say, as equally "victimless" as any other form of porn that involves consenting adults, regardless of whether or not the characters are completely of legal age, and, like I pointed out, what a "consenting adult" is, in the legal sense, varies rather wildly from place to place, and some would undoubtedly argue that because of this, there would have to be exceptions or qualifications made to any declaration of it being not a "victimless crime".

(Again, for the record...) Personally, I'm squicked out (disturbed) at the idea of any character under the age of 14 having sex (even if said to be consensual) with any character younger OR older then them, and relatively ambivalent about any truly consensual sex between fictional characters 14 or epsecially 15 or older (though rape fantasies understandably freak me out. Unfortunately, as someone once a frequent poster on Godawful Fan Fiction's forums, I've managed to see a few of those, and they never stop freaking me out >.< There are some real sickos on the internet, in my opinion), but those are my personal feelings on the matter; my intellectual concept of Age of Consent as far as fiction and roughly-the-same-age-as-each-other real-life romances goes (but especially for fiction) is roughly 14 or 15 (assuming the teenager(s) in question is/aren't being manipulated, is/aren't immature, and is/are possessed of all of their mental faculties, especially if there is genuine affection and devotion between the consenting partners and they're not too awfully far apart in age), but many people would probably find this age too low, and in many areas, the legal AoC is older than that, reflecting that somewhat. Runa27 07:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that from a more anarchistic viewpoint, a person who is able to copy child pornography without paying for it (in money or in any other way) does not encourage its production and therefore is not responsible for its production. If he is then able to disseminate it to other people, then he has perhaps caused them not to pay for it, and therefore actually protected children from abuse by reducing the monetary demand. Of course, both points are prone to debate: the person may (by inadvertently divulging his IP for blackmail in a certain legal environment, for example) end up paying a fortune for what he thought he got for free; and by posting the material he may "turn someone on" to it or desensitize a reader to the point where he is willing to pay for more when before he was not. Meanwhile a "libertarian" believing in intellectual property might say that the downloader violates the child's right to use of likeness and/or the pornographer's copyright; and also that the government violates these same rights by preventing legal sales and collection of money. So the argument could end up being decided on definitions, circumstances, and assumptions, based on a much broader range of political philosophy. "Victimless" is based on "victim", but deciding when and how someone has been made a victim is the final result of the entire process of legal argument. Wnt (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Retitle

I have taken the political stance of this page literally and note the rejection of any link to law or criminology made in the page above. Thus, since the volume of material cumulatively will not comfortably sit on one page (even supposing that agreement on a text could be reached), it seems better to fork into the separate sections. This will leave you free to make philosophical points without fear of contradiction from lawyers and criminologists. David91 18:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So now the disambig victimless crime refers to the various incarnations of public order crime as being the legal definitions of the crimes we normally refer to as victimless? I guess so, but I wonder how we would facilitate changes and stuff. So... does this make the philosophers libertarians? I thought I was a liberal or something... :) Ah well, I'll leave the culling of law-references to others, as I don't really know how to responsibly draw the line between law and philosophical standpoint. Tyciol 19:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

VOTE: Return this article to original name

This is a vote on whether this article should be renamed back to its original name victimless crime, or whether it should remain here as victimless crime (political philosophy).

A vote to support the move is a vote to support moving this article back to victimless crime, which would include deleting the newly created victimless crime disambiguation page. Only signed votes will count. --Serge 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The current victimless crime "disambiguation" page is blatant POV nonsense. --Serge 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So that we can all have an informed debate, would Serge please cite formally referenced authority to demonstrate that his rejection of the clarification represented by this move are not pure POV, i.e. a uniquely Libertarian response. As a matter of fact, the move does no more than agree with his statement made earlier on this page that the material here has nothing to do with law and criminology. This page is therefore properly titled as political rather than legal and criminological. David91 02:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It would seem simpler just to link Public order crime from here. The usage of the phrase seems to me to almost always refer to the concept covered in this article. Mdwh 02:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the research underpinning the adoption of the term "Public order crime" explicitly rejects the concept covered in this article as a myth. David91 02:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Veto. Not only are Dave's objections valid, but there's no mention of how to vote against it, leading to a bit of a bias I'd think. So, since I assume Dave's voting to veto as well, thats 2-2. Even so, Dave's reasoning is pretty good on why we need a disambig. Tyciol 07:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Whoops -- Support. I just proposed this from scratch, not realizing there was a history of discussion. I'll put a link to this section below. But I definitely support the move back. Whenever Wikipedia has two articles about one thing, one of them looks bad. Wnt (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Victimless crime just redirects here, and that is the term users would commonly expect to find this article under. Whether to merge "public order crime" with this article is a separate issue. Queerudite (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is and may be implicated Mdwh?

not always - there are plenty of things that people may agree are victimless, but should still be illegal (eg, gun laws) Mdwh

Regarding this, I don't really think the change is needed. Gun laws do not outlaw guns, and guns should certainly not be illegal. Instead, special laws are put in place to protect people from those who would use guns irresponsibly by necessitating permits and such things. The same would apply to sex laws pretty much, if one were to remove the age of consent that doesn't mean that sex can just be engaged with anyone, there should still be laws in place to protect people from sexual predators who would use sex in a harmful way, as in guns. Tyciol 07:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Weird... I'd like to add, I was trying to edit the talk page of the disambiguation page (victimless crime) yet when I tried to go to it it forwards me here constantly. Has anyone else experienced this problem? A bug after a big move? I wonder if there's a way to fix it. Tyciol 07:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

David91 set it up as a redirect to this page. To fix: Go to victimless crime (the disambig page). Click on "discuss this page". It will take you to this page, except at the top it will say it redirected you from the other talk page, and provide a link to it. Click on that link, and then select "edit this page" when you're on it, remove the redirect, add your comment(s), save. --Serge 19:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution

Is prostitution really a victimless crime? Just becuse "consent" is bought doesn't mean there was real consent, so isn't prostitution just socially acceptable rape?

• What you describe is more akin to sex slavery, which is not a victimless crime. The idea is that any service should be able to be sold, and that sex is just another service. ArrowmanCoder 06:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like an idealized version of the matter. -Will Beback 06:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But entirely consistent with the libertarian political philosophy of a page that has expressly rejected any connection with the law or criminology relevant to the issue. David91 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If prostitution is just "socially acceptable rape" absent of "real consent", then paying workers to dig ditches, wash dishes, clean toilets, work in mines, perform rectal exams, cook your food, work on an assembly line, etc., are all just examples of socially acceptable slavery, absent of "real consent". In all of these cases, consent is agreeing to do something you normally wouldn't agree to do, in exchange for something you do want (usually money). Either an adult has a right to choose what to do with their body, including to perform sexual, hard labor or some other normally-undesirable-to-do-for-some-reason services in return for something they do want, or not. --Serge 23:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing I noticed in the article's references to prostitution is that the crimes associated with it (pimping, rape, etc.) are a result of it being a crime, as the victims are unable to go to law enforcement. Where prostitution is legalized and regulated these crimes don't happen, or do and are duly prosecuted under the law. This is a fairly common argument for legalization, and I'm surprised that this argumen didn't show up. Of course, maybe I overlooked it, and if that's the case I'm sorr for cluttering up the talk page ToastyMcGrath 06:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether prostitution is a victimless crime, one need merely consider how few cases of HIV emerge from the legitimate industry in Nevada and Holland and how many from the illegal trade, to conclude that its prohibition is not. That said, prostitution reveals that a culture in which a certain group of people claim the land and the airwaves and the means of production, and others are born to compete with one another for whatever scraps the wealthy choose to throw them, is not a victimless society. They are told they must accept ignorance, disease, abject poverty and crime, or "choose" unwanted sex - and that merely having this choice means they are not victims. In other words, because people are born with basic needs, they must also be born with positive rights or else the free functioning of a capitalist society can make them victims.Wnt (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is heavily biased toward the libertarian perspective. The examples section ignores that the victimless status of the cited crimes is debatable., something that can be clearly since in the page history: the victimless status of crimes is treated as a matter of fact rather than debate. Caveat lector 01:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cite your sources for views about what the term victimless crime means within the context of political philosophy that are contrary to the examples. --Serge 02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You've just missed my entire point! (I may be partly to blame for this). While a libertarian might think that X crime is a victimless crime, a conservative might think that victimless crimes don't exist. Giving examples of victimless crimes gives a partisan view. It would be better to call them "alleged" victimless crimes or some equivalent term. Instead of saying outright that prostitution is a victimless crime, the article should say something along the line of: "libertarians believe prostitution is a victimless crime because ... whereas conservatives believe it isn't a victimless crime because ... ." Going straight out a saying that prostitution is a victimless crime precludes giving a fair account of both view points. -- Caveat lector 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We're not supposed to represent a libertarian or a conservative POV here. We're supposed to represent NPOV. We know what victims are. We know what behavior is criminally illegal. If behavior that results in no one being a victim is never-the-less a crime, then it is a victimless crime, by definition. That's NPOV, not libertarian POV or any other POV. With respect to those examples where there is controversy about whether there is a victim, it is so noted. If you think some of those opportunities are missed, then be bold and fix it. But don't label the entire article as being NPOV. --Serge 07:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We're not supposed to represent a libertarian or a conservative POV here. We're supposed to represent NPOV.

Your language here is so vague, it's somewhat self-contradictory. We ARE supposed to represent those POVs... we just can't actively support them, or write about them in anything but a neutral manner. "Represent" and "write in support of" are two slightly different things. I can create writing that "represents" several political or philosophical POVs at once, without actually being POV. That kind of thing is exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to do when it comes to political or philosophical issues: have text to represent every major side to an issue, in as neutral a manner as possible.

We know what victims are. We know what behavior is criminally illegal. If behavior that results in no one being a victim is never-the-less a crime, then it is a victimless crime, by definition. That's NPOV, not libertarian POV or any other POV.

Too bad you can't tell, Serge, that that comes off as actually quite POVish. You see, the term "victim" covers a WIDE range of things. Some people will disagree on whether certain things do create victims or not. Indeed, some people seem to believe that certain people or organizations, such as corrupt or abusive corperations, politicians or systems of government, are OK to hurt, that it creates no "real" victim. Don't believe me? Take a gander at Downhill Battle, a site that encourages file-sharing of music due to the percieved oppression and corruption of the major label recording industry. As you're no doubt aware, plenty of people believe that file-sharing of music is morally wrong, because the artist doesn't get paid. These folks argue that the artists will hardly get paid anything anyway, and see file-sharing as a way of helping take down the recording industry. One of the arguments they posed was that it was more beneficial to download the album for free off of the internet's file-sharing services and then mail the artist as much money as you want to give. This of course, is supporting something that would quite literally hurt the record companies' financial state, even while it supports the artists. Is this "victimless", or isn't it? Depends on whether you choose to see the major music labels as victims or not. A lot of people choose not to.

Tying into this - additionally, you once again have somehow managed to overlook the fact that they weren't arguing against the basic definition of a crime with no direct victim; they were arguing that certain examples listed merely as "victimless crimes" in the article are often debated, that is, it's often debated between people as to whether or not they are a truly victimless crime.

We cannot simply define something as being a 100% accurate example of "a victimless crime" if there is debate as to whether or not it actually involves a victim. We should be listing things as being seen as "victimless crimes", or "seen by [insert major political/philosophical group here]s as being a victimless crime, due to [insert group's reasoning in NPOV fashion] though [insert another relatively major group that disagrees with the other one here]s disagree, claiming [insert that group's reasoning, in NPOV fashion]". I ran into this same kind of subtle semantic problem over at Mary Sue; Mary Sue is a subjective term, yet people were saying it was or wasn't such-and-such things, when it wasn't, it was just frequently seen as those things.

With respect to those examples where there is controversy about whether there is a victim, it is so noted. If you think some of those opportunities are missed, then be bold and fix it. But don't label the entire article as being NPOV. --Serge 07:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victimless_crime_%28political_philosophy%29"

Um, I believe there's nothing wrong with NPOV, and that labeling it NPOV would be a good thing. :P (Sorry, couldn't resist. If it's any consolution, I make those kinds of jokes about my own or my best friends' typos, as well!)

Anyway, did it not occur to you that perhaps this person had also tried to fix some of them, or considered doing it, but wanted to discuss it on the Talk page first, to be fair to other editors, as per assuming good faith? Apparently it did not. Or perhaps, they know there's a problem, but simply don't realize how to reword anything, or what to add or delete, in order to fix it in a truly satisfactory way, and don't want to risk making it worse while trying to improve it? Please be a bit more understanding and Assume Good Faith. :)

I apologize if there's any typos or little weird wordings in my post (feel free to poke me for them if you find them!), it's really late where I am. Just wanted to comment before I forgot. Runa27 08:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

subverting national culture by using languages?

that's a crime? please dont kid me, can someone check this and remove it as soon as possible?

also destruction of public property (and property in general) is also probably a victimless crime..

What? That's bull. If I stole your clothes and burned them, wouldn't you be no less a than a victim? And destruction of public property makes society the victim. I.E. I'm glad my day in court (should I have one) would happen to be in an actual building and not in somebody's backyard because the courthouse was bombed, irradiated, filled with anthrax spores, etc.

Root⁴(one) 01:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What defines a "Victim" and why is something "Victimless"?

I'm really in no mood to improve this article right now because I see too many problems. However I feel I must make note of a basic idea which could improve the article. With any discourse on victimless crime, there should be discussion of the meaning of "victim" and why certain actions performed which have been defined as "crimes" by some people have no victim. Without that addressed there can not be any discussion with regard to the law because you haven't defined anything. You can go on all day about why laws making "victimless crimes" criminal are wrong and I could care less unless you give me a specific instance because my definition of victim is probably far different from that of yours. Otherwise, this discussion is a bunch of nonsense, like two parrots bantering words without significant meaning.

My suggestions.

1. The "Specific arguments" section deserves to be expanded and moved toward the top after examples. Maybe call it Elaboration or something... Or maybe just get rid of it, I dunno. In any case, the examples of section 1 need to be elaborated upon and said in depth why the actions are victimless.
2. The "Proponents for reform" and "Proponents of status quo" sections need to be rewritten keeping in mind that there has not been a universally accepted definition of victim. They should address particular instances of "Victimless crimes" instead of "Victimless crimes" as a whole because the term has very little meaning without context. Remember that a reader may concede that the crime of smoking marijuana has no victim but smoking tobacco does (or vice versa).

However, I must make this final note. I find the literal meaning "victimless crime" to be an absurdity (it is an oxymoron), but I do understand particular instances of actions defined to be crimes have been labeled as such. When one talks of "victimless crimes", one actually is talking about crimes which he or she does not think ought to be crimes because he or she cannot figure out who or what has been sinned against (sin here being only the concept of doing some wrong to some entity). In that respect "victimless crimes" is no more nor less than "all crimes that (I) don't agree should be called a crime". Ponder that for a moment. If "victimless crimes" has that particular definition, then most of this whole article is absurd, because there is no entity that is universally accepted to exist that we can even discuss. (The more I think about it, the more I think that's what this article is attempting to be about. I'm seriously having trouble conceiving of a crime which we can ALL agree is and ought to be a crime but is without a victim. Any such "crime" evaporates when we realize without the victim, there is no need for it to be considered a crime.)

I think I just proved to myself why neither I nor anybody else of sane mind should even be commenting here. However, I dare you to prove me wrong.

Root⁴(one) 02:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof (very rough): Victimless Crimes do not exist.

1 Def: All verbs (actions) are either intransitive (actions to oneself or itself) or transitive (actions to other object).

2 Def: To commit a crime one has to do some wrong (action).

3 Def: A victim is an entity that has had some wrong done to it by a particular action.

4 Def: Some action is said to be victimless if no victim exists for that action.

5 A victimless crime is therefore a crime against no victim.

6 Since there's no victim, there's no object that the crime (verb) can act against.

7 There can be no actions that exist where nothing is acted upon by def 1.

8 No entity exists upon for which a victimless crime to act upon.

9 Thus by 7 & 8, Victimless crimes do not exist.

Thoughts? Root⁴(one) 02:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that proof uses a "universally believed" concept of wrong. The proof could obviously fail if I used a different definition.

1. For one X to commit a crime (as perceived by a law entity L), X performed some action categorized as wrong by Y.

2. For one Y to be a victim (as perceived by a law entity L), L perceives Y has had some wrong done to Y by a particular action.

Hmmm... I can't seem to prove that Victimless crimes exist for these definitions either. Ah.

3 An action is said to be victimless (to Y) if the receiver Y of the action does not perceive itself to be the victim.

That would do it, because then X could do crime Y in view of L, and Y would be the victim (in view of L) but this allows for the case that Y does not itself perceive itself to be the victim. (BTW, it could be the fact that X = Y, but L <> Y, otherwise Y thinks a crime was done to itself, Y perceives Y is the victim, and yet it doesn't believe it to be the victim... A bit like Moore's Paradox)

I dunno, I may have messed up the logic a bit, but this attempt at formalism seems educational to me. The formal definitions seems to further prove my point that the "victimless crimes" concept is either about nothing, or literally and only about crimes that some individual people don't think should be crimes, and thus not even encyclopedic (however discussions about the term, how the phrase is used, what "word games" it is a part of, etc, I would say is definitely encyclopedic and valuable.)

Root⁴(one) 03:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I have even more points!

I see that ownership (X owns G) can also be considered a crime, which I forgot about. For example, owning laundered money, large weapons stockpiles, child porn, slaves, sweatshop clothes, etc. This is interesting in that its very hard to identify the victim as (owning G) seems to be the crime. However, (ignoring slaves) this appears to be crimes of intent (X appears to intend to do wrong to some Y) or crimes of supporting abuse (X does wrong to Y through Z). I'm not sure my logic really handles either of those instances, but there still is either a victim, or a potential victim.

BTW, I'm reading Public order crime right now. That article is FAR better organized and in explaining things than this article. I personally vote to merge some of the better points of this article with that article keeping the latter's structure.

Root⁴(one) 04:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup and sourcing much needed

If this isn't to be merged with public order crime (I don't see why not, myself, the two are essentially different names for the same thing), it certainly needs cleanup and referencing. Right now, both articles read more like editorials than fact pieces, and seem to consist of significant amounts of original research and interpretation. The phenomenon of victimless crime has certainly been studied quite heavily, I'll see what I can find for sources. I imagine some of the claims here can be attributed to reliable sources, but it's important to avoid weasel words, e.g. "Some argue..." (who argues?) "It has been said that..." (by whom?) and so on. It also should be carefully watched, lest the public order crime article and this one wind up as POV forks, each covering the same subject but from a different POV, which of course is not allowed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Revenue-raising crimes

I have removed the following:

Revenue-raising crimes

- These are statutory crimes which are ostensibly for public order or safety but which primarily exist to provide revenue for the enforcement agency or jurisdiction.

• Speed limits [2]
• Licensing regulations
• parking tickets
• smoking bans

While a strong argument can be made that the section is simple POV and/or OR, it is easier to see that it does NOT fit the definition of the article: "A victimless crime is behavior of an individual which is forbidden by law, but which neither violates nor significantly threatens the rights of other individuals."

1) The listed items are not crimes. (e.g., Speeding is a crime, as it breaks a law establishing a speed limit. "Speed limits" are not crimes, they are laws.)

2) The listed items are not "behavior of an individual". (e.g., Smoking is the behavior of an individual. "Smoking bans" are passed by legislative bodies.)

Mdbrownmsw 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hiding crimes is criminal

I have removed the following as "victimless" crimes:

• money laundering (though the government and those stolen from are technically harmed)
• Smurfing

Per the article: "A victimless crime is behavior of an individual which is forbidden by law, but which neither violates nor significantly threatens the rights of other individuals."

As smurfing is used to hide money laundering which is used to hide other crimes, they are only "victimless" to the extent that the crimes they seek to hide are victimless. Smurfing to hide money laundering to hide (insert vile crime here) significantly threatens the rights of other individuals by supporting the (vile crime).

Otherwise, ANY illegal weapon sale is "victimless". There is no victim in the sale of nuclear weapons to the deranged psychopath down the street, unless you recognize that it supports his desire to hold the world hostage. Silencers? No victim. Mdbrownmsw 19:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing hate crimes

Hate crimes have to be one of the most ridiculous examples of victimless crimes. By definition a hate crime requires hatred to be expressed toward a victim or group thereof. As such I am removing this example and suggest that it remain removed unless someone can find a source citing it as victimless and can explain the basis of this status. Ultiam 01:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensual crimes are not always victimless

This article currently claims that "All consensual crime, when performed by or with an individual who has the ability to consent, is by nature victimless, as no rights can be violated or threatened of an individual who has consented to the behavior in question."

However, according to the examples in the consensual crime article, this need not be the case. Two examples in particular, while consensual, are not victimless:

1. Fights to which both participants consent. Society is a victim when such crimes take place. Should participants require medical treatment, it is taxpayers who must foot the bill. Furthermore, such activities promote subsequent non-consensual violent crime, gang activity, and other underground criminal activities.

2. The consensual transmission of HIV. Again, society is a victim of such a crime, as it has to pay for the resultant medical and social costs. Furthermore, as the illness progresses, the individual becomes a non-contributing member of society, again to its detriment. HIV infection also occurs in a pyramidal fashion; by consensually transmitting the disease to one person, all other members of the public are at a greater risk of non-consensually acquiring the disease from the new infectee (through blood, sex, needles, etc.), which is not only a detriment to society, but produces clear individual victims.

Because of such reasons, it is not NPOV to state that all consensual crime is by nature victimless, for it depends on whether society or individuals affected indirectly can be considered as victims. As this is a subject of debate, it is only fair to qualify the original statement as being made by proponents of victimless crime. Ultiam 02:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Paying for treatment assumes the existence of public health care, which may not be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.148.82 (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One argument for "victimless" status in these cases is that "society" cannot be a victim; only individuals can be victims. If a specific individual cannot be named as a victim, you can make an argument that the crime is victimless. In fact, many of the mentioned crimes' illegality hinges upon the notion that "society" can be a victim in absence of a specific harmed individual. In other words, the illegality hinges upon treating society itself as an individual. This is why these are sometimes called "public order" crimes -- the harm is not to a specific victim, but rather to the general "public order."

Usually crimes that have specific victims are nonconsensual, and hence outside of the scope of debate.

It is NPOV to describe the debate over whether it makes any sense to talk about "society" being a victim; it is not, however, NPOV to take sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.3.115.254 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear that the presence of a named victim is the relevant criterion. For example, public nudity indisputably affects specific people who see it, not society as a whole; many call it victimless because we do not believe these people have suffered actionable damage, i.e. that the "perpetrator" was within his rights of free expression. Conversely, the extermination of the last ten individuals of an endangered species from a remote, protected reserve on public land may affect no specific person, but be said to destroy or victimize a public resource - at least, I don't have the impression many advocates of legalizing victimless crimes actually support an open season on endangered species. Wnt (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Littering

Is littering (e.g. throwing your spent milkshake out the car window onto the publicly owned shoulder of the roadway):

• A victimless crime?
• A consensual crime?
• A public order crime?

If someone can come up with a sourced answer for this it would help determine whether the proposed merges are appropriate. Wnt (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussions below and above. Disambiguation with Public order crime seems to be adequately handled in the lead. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Victimless crime (political philosophy) → Victimless crime

There really is no usage of the term "victimless crime" except in a legal (and by extension political) context, so I've proposed to move this page to Victimless crime. The blurb formerly at Victimless crime which I've merged into this article had no reason to exist separately. Please comment if you agree or disagree. Wnt (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops

Apparently there was some voting on this issue before, above, at Talk:Victimless_crime_(political_philosophy)#VOTE:_Return_this_article_to_original_name. It didn't really occur to me that someone would actually oppose the move. I still think it's a good idea, though.

Pro

• Nom and support. In addition to what I said above, I should point out that there is no Victimless crime (something else besides political philosophy) linked from the disambiguation page.
• Support Victimless crime is just a redirect to here. Zazaban (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just did that. Here is what it looked like before I merged it into this article. (I hope you'll still support ;) ) Wnt (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And before that is was a disambig page with one link. That's more or less a redirect. Zazaban (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Con

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Shoplifting?

Victimless crimes ... include ... shoplifting.

How is shoplifting a victimless crime? René van Buuren (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not. Zazaban (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Most of this article should be blanked as pure unsourced WP:OR. It must be made plain that this is a political or propaganda term without clear definition. The article should then discuss attributed usage of the term, not compile a list of items cobbled together by the Wikipedia community. Who used the term in what way, who critcized it, WP:RS as usual. dab (𒁳) 09:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

After some browsing, I find the proper neutral term is Consensual crime. Pending a well-sourced discussion, this article should probably be merged into the consensual crime, perhaps under a discussion of "controversy" regarding the punishability of such. I appreciate that "victimless crime" has the potential for a standalone artile in principle. At this point, the problem is simply that nobody so far has written that standalone article. dab (𒁳) 09:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be noted, though, that the Victimless crime article does not state how many people are involved and it is possible to only have one person (like a single person streaking through a city), where as consensual crime specifically states there is more than one person involved. Just noting. Not opposed or anything, just keep it in mind, don't bother replying to this. --Heero Kirashami (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A Victimless Crime and a Consensual crime are not the same thing. For example, illegal drug usage is a Victimless Crime, however it is not a Consensual Crime. It is not appropriate to merge these 2 things, since they have different meanings (and also come from completely different traditions).

Also... in a political discussion, there's usually no way to have a neutral label for a concept. (This is one of those cases.) The label "Victimless Crime" is what is used in political discourse in many circles (including Libertarianism, Classical Liberalism, Minarchism, and Anarchism), and it makes sense to use that exact label.

Also, there is a precise definition of what a Victimless Crime. A Victimless Crime is defined in terms of Self ownership and (material) property.

A description of what a victimless crime is, drawing from the Libertarianism, Classical Liberalism, Minarchism, and Anarchism traditions, from which the terms comes from is...

A victimless crime is one in which the accused has not acted in a manner harmful to another. In other words, nothing was stolen; no property damaged; no other party was hurt -- no other real person, that is. What has occurred is this: The accused has broken some 'shall' or 'shall not' statute of law. In all such cases the state assumes the role of victim, no matter that in most cases the accused is the real victim and the state the assailant.

I vote NO to a merge.

--Charles Iliya Krempeaux (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there's been no further discussion of this, I'm going to remove the merge suggestion, and edit the article with the changes I mentioned. --Charles Iliya Krempeaux (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the intro. I'll leave it there for a while (before cleaning up the rest of the article) to give others a chance to comment before moving on to the rest of the article. --Charles Iliya Krempeaux (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No merge. This is an important legal concept, particularly to American constitutional law. Can be, and is being improved. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jim Crow Laws?

It seems as if "Jim Crow Laws" created victimless crimes.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm

I'm not sure if the point of the article is to list every victimless crime out there (or just examples), so I put it up for discussion. It seems like it would be worth mentioning. --Septantrionalis (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensual crimes: Is there actually any harm

I can see now that this is a contentious article, and my edit was a simple correction when casually browsing, but I have to agree that the whole thing is heavily biased. I am sorry if I have jumped in at the deep end of a debate, and have not had time to read through all the talk above, but I am bothered enough to defend my edit.

I added the italicised: "First, consensual crimes with (arguably) no material harm, such as consensual homosexual sex where illegal, can be considered victimless, as no one is visibly harmed.", and on revert have made the less ambiguous statement "First, consensual crimes with (arguably) no material harm, such as consensual homosexual sex where illegal, can be considered victimless, as no one is seen to be harmed. " Some disclaimer here is very necessary, since we must not forget that a) until recently it was still the majority view by psychologists that things like homosexuality were effectively self-harm (I am not commenting on whether this is true, but it was and still is thought by some) b) Plenty of people still think this, cf. hundreds of millions of muslims and christians.

The sentence should not conclude whether there is harm or not, as that is OR, let alone POV or GEO as well.—Kan8eDie (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We are in the present, not the recent past. Also, plenty of people still disbelieve evolution, but that doesn't mean we have to dispute the idea. It is generally scientifically accepted that there homosexually is totally normal and harmless. Zazaban (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Where homosexuality is criminalised, it is a victimless crime. There is and has never been no honest evidence claiming that homosexuality is harmful, and was only really considered a mental illness through subjective consensus by specialists in the field of psychology -- not objective experimentation. It is irrelevant if a religious majority considers homosexuality to be harmful as those views are based on prejudice and not evidence. I doubt that "death by homosexuality" has ever been a recorded in an obituary.--121.220.139.44 (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! This is massive O.R. going on here. Regarding evolution, I should point out that are several paragraphs dealing with crazy ideas like Christian fundamentalist responses, but we do not have that in this article. Wikipedia does not tell the 'truth', just what people think; since the numbers of people who (in so many ways unfortunately) oppose things like abortion are so great, particularly in for example the Muslim world, that view has to be represented more to present a world-wide perspective, regardless of how crazy you think it is. Viewpoints are represented, not evaluated here. Now, I don't have time at the moment to chase down sources, but clearly there is a strong feeling among many of the billion Muslims on these issues, which, from their point of view (a point of view, which, for the record, I note I disagree with) are based on evidence (from, for example, the Koran). Clearly, I am playing 'devil's advocate' in the debate between two radically different worldviews, but to refuse to give any even slight voice to one point because it does not fit in with your worldview is rank O.R.

I do not have to time to chase this one down, so I withdraw, but however much I agree or not with what is written, I find it distressing for the project that these arguments are used to push the American atheist 'truth'.—Kan8eDie (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. Zazaban: You implied in your edit summary that the effects would be only in some afterlife. Actually, from what my Christian friends tell me, I think the majority Christian opinion is that these sorts of things hurt us now, not just in the afterlife, i.e. that there is a general link between the incomplete state of current human happiness and our 'sin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kan8eDie (talk • contribs) 11:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources There is absolutely no reliable source that would ever claim that homosexuality is harmful. I am not an american, so please don't pull the cultural imperialism card on me. Frankly I believe you would find hostility if you tried to argue that being an unmarried woman is harmful and I don't see how this is any different. I would say myself that there is a link between human religiosity and an 'incomplete state of human happiness', but I would never try to insert that opinion into wikipedia. Zazaban (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. Kan8eDie. I don't know why you think that I would hold christian opinion in some higher regard than yours, but I don't. Zazaban (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if Wikipedia is a utilitarian measure of the values of a majority, it still endeavours to provide factual information otherwise it cannot be considered a valid reference. If there are no scientific, medical or other references that suggest homosexuality is "self-harm" then there is no substantiate basis for claiming that it is and remaining silent on the topic. Also for future reference, you should refrain in jumping to conclusions about who are you are arguing with -- I'm Australia and an Agnostic. Just because there is strong feeling among religious groups that homosexuality is evil, sin, unnatural or whatever else, doesn't make it harmful to the rest of society. Criminalising the action therefore makes it a victimless crime. And that's the crux of the matter; If you can't prove that an action or behaviour is inherently harmful, than criminalising it means it's a victimless crime. Because it questions the religious practice of a particular demographic, doesn't mean its harmful, either.--58.165.237.194 (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)