Should we have laws regarding "victimless" crimes? Argue for or against laws on victimless crimes.

 

We shouldn't have laws that enforce victimless crimes. We shouldn't enforce victimless crimes because there is no victim or complaining party. No one suffers a physical loss or any other type of loss from a victimless crime. Most victimless crimes occur in private and don't involve any party that is unwilling to participate. Another argument against enforcing victimless crimes is that most are considered minor or less serious offenses. If law enforcement have to spend a lot of time enforcing and investigating less serious, victimless crimes, that takes away the time needed to solve more serious crimes. A final argument against enforcing victimless crimes is that many of these crimes involve the use of goods or services that are in high demand. For instance, many drug charges are considered victimless crimes. Enforcing these types of crimes can lead to an increase for demand of these goods on the black-market.

An argument for laws on victimless crimes is that even though there are no victims, they are crimes against society as a whole. When a person violates a law against society norms or values, they should be punished. Another argument in favor is about morality. Those in favor argue that many victimless crimes are immoral and therefore should be criminalize. For instance, this includes prostitution and drug charges.

Main arguments against enforcing victimless crimes:

• No victim/no complaining party
• Takes police away from enforcing more serious crimes
• These crimes often involve goods and services that are highly desirable (i.e. drugs, illegal gambling)

Main arguments for enforcing victimless crimes:

• They are still crimes against society as a whole
• Many of these acts are immoral and go against societal norms
• Crimes should be punished no matter what