Of victimless crimes
The discussion on the Stolen Valor thread has gone down what I consider an absurd route, but so it goes. However, for those who assert a theory of victimless crimes being contrary to common law and constitutional law, I would ask that you spot for me any crimes I may commit in the follow hypothetical. (Also, as regards prostitution and how it is victimless, I would ask that you reconcile that with the common law tort of Alienation of Affections.)
Vt Woody is my arch nemesis. We loathe each other. And it has gotten worse since we both starting vying for the attention of the same cheerleader. Each day I sat in the dark scheming. My neighbor Herbert asked me to come spend some time with him and his dog Jesse. As I explained everything to him he said that nothing would make me feel better than to spend some time with young boys. So Herbert calls to all the boys in the neighborhood and they come over. Now Herbert is creepy, so he gives all the boys sleeping pills to knock them out. Only, they are Flintstone chewables, and the boys go home. Herbert is broken hearted, and has a heart attack and dies right there.
Now Herbert is a gun collector, and he has told me that he wants his remains burned with his guns. Instead though, I use his skull to fashion a really lovely lamp, while I ponder what to do to VT Woody. At long last I take one of Herbert’s guns, and a silencer, and head down to the football stadium. Now, because I was raised in a Tibettan Monastary by ninjas, I am able to unlock the gate, and then scale the side of the building with my sniper rifle. I hide in the lights and wait for VT Woody and his troop of cheeleaders (including the chick) to arrive.
Finally the game starts, and out they both come. I take aim and fire. Now, on account of being a shitty shot, I miss. But, because it is silenced, no one hears it. I take aim again. Nothing. I do this 8 times before a police officer sees me, and arrests me.
Now, what crime(s) have I committed under the theory that only crimes which have a victim are actionable?
Category: Politics
Not sure what crimes are there, but I wanted you to know you still have the Right to Remain Fabulous my friend.
Does it help the situation at all, that I will be heading to the Bahamas next week for 4 days and 3 nights of all inclusive adventures with then entire team, including the one you lust for?
http://www.baltimoreravens.com/People/Cheer/Spring_Fling.aspx
There are still spots available!
It was a hypothetical dumbass, only cheerleader I pine for is coming home today.
I love Flintstone chewables!
TSO in 50 years? God help us all…
TSO, honey, dear – you have been studying for the bar exam again haven’t you? There are numerous crimes here, because we all know that crimes require a mens rea and an overt act in furtherance of behaviour proscribed by statute, not a victim (sometimes we have crimes that don’t even require a mens rea. We call them strict liability offenses – i.e. statutory rape). I have too much other unpleasant crap to deal with today to enumerate your offenses, but lets just say you are either going to the land of many slamming doors for a good long while or the nut house.
No, I know Susan, I tried to think up as many crimes as possible without a victim to show them how ridiculous such a legal theory would be. Somewhat not surprised I didn’t get any answers.
I still don’t understand where this victim-less crime defense comes from. I’ve never once heard of the Supremes invalidating something based on whether there was in fact a victim. It seems that if one agrees fraud is a crime, and agrees that medals for valor have tangible or intangible benefits to the person that earned them, then the only possible distinction is whether someone subjectively feels that it rises to the level of deserving protection, or if it is too attenuated. Any other defense, which I guess is what I am hearing is so much grunting it would seem.
Let’s see:
Attempted Distribution of Controlled Substances (based on Herbert’s belief that they were sleeping pills);
Conspiracy (you and Herbert) to Distribute Controlled Substances;
State offense (if it exists) of Desecration of Herbert’s Body;
Theft of the Firearms (unless you were in the Will);
Possible Possession of an Unregistered Silencer;
Federal Discharging a Firearm During a Crime of Violence; and
Attempted Murder (unknown number of counts).
I think also *maybe” endangering minors, but not sure.
But, there is no victim to any of these. I would also note that under the theory of victims being required all inchoate crimes would not exist, and an illegal act that resulted in no harm would be admissable. Say for instance I claim to be a doctor and render medical aid, it would only be illegal under such thinking if I actually caused harm. If instead I helped, or did no harm, then I wouldn’t violate anything.
If the enticement of the minors occurred over the Internet, there’s a state, if not federal (if crossing state lines involved) crime involved there as well. At least all those folks who get nailed by Chris Hansen on Dateline NBC will probably tell you that.
Let’s see if I can add some.
Discharging a firearm in city limits,
Breaking and Entering
Assault with a deadly weapon
stalking
shifty shooting ( I know…not a crime, but it should be )
Sorry… Shitty shooting. Damn iPhone “corrected” my spelling.
Wouldn’t the victim be the person who could have died if you happened to hit them (attempted / murder?). This analogy has death as a possible result, which seems to remove it from consideration as a proper analogy. The gravity of that possible result (death) is what requires that we don’t need a “victim” as defined in the analogy.
I’d say assumption that being hit by the bullet makes you a victim is faulty. It’s the possibilty of something grave happening to you that makes you a victim. It doesn’t apply to everyone, just the people you took aim at.
You clearly missed the point of the discussion Jen.
In considering your brief and the M.D. example, the problem seems to lie in the broad language of the statute (claims, represents). Even the M.D. law given as example is more strict.
(b) False claims about receipt of military decorations or medals. Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
But you’d have to prove the gravity of stolen valor which doesn’t seem to equate the possibility of death.
I see what you are getting at but Rick’s lawyers are not going to concede that point.
/waveshand
This isn’t the post you were looking for.
/jedi
You aren’t refuting the victimless crime idea in your brief? It seems likely they will try to apply some form of it, the very least to deny your points on the (actual or ?) harm to the tangible and intangible worth of medals.
Jen–you’re not a lawyer, and judging by your posts, that’s a good thing, for both you and your potential “clients”.
no but I am in law school and am able to separate my personal feelings from the issue and attempt to look at what the law says and what the court might say. it seems you are unaware of the adversarial method. I don’t recommend trying the butthurt method in court should you ever get there.
I don’t know what you do, but I would imagine even in an amicus (which I would assume is the task) TSO will have to anticipate opposition arguments, he can’t rely on rainbows and unicorns alone.
Which law school, pray tell? You’re making Oily Taint look like a Supreme Court justice by your posts. I’m guessing your next point will be that they didn’t teach you how to write sentences in college, and that wasn’t important while studying for your LCAT? That a brief with your horrific syntax wouldn’t get laughed out of court because, dammit, you have some damn fine points to make, so long as you ignore the lack of punctuation, capitalization, logic, or basically anything else of relevance?
Thanks for playing, Jen–Johnny, what do we have for our loser today?
“Now, what crime(s) have I committed under the theory that only crimes which have a victim are actionable?”
By missing your targets, not to mention being arrested instea of making good your escape, you have sullied the names of all ninja snipers (or at least, those that were trained at that particular monastery). While perhaps not a crime against U.S. or state law, it is a crime against the monastery’s code, which means they are honor-bound to hunt you down for a slow motion and/or badly dubbed wire battle.
Did I get it right?
NOW I begin to see what TSO and Susan see in this legal mumbo jumbo.
It’s HAWT!
Well I guess it’s a good thing I don’t write briefs from my phone on blog comment sections. In the meantime I’d love to do a back and forth with someone on actual points; but since all you can muster are some lame personal insults I’ll just have to assume the only back and forth you are able to do is from your knees on TSO’s “weenie”.
And it’s LSAT. Good try. Goodbye.
Stop it, pons–you just liked the part with Herbert and all the young boys…
Jen, I know I’ve talked to you about not falling prey to the negativity of sex-recipient-based insults…come on now.
TSO, I would argue that alienation of affection is in fact a victimless crime. The only thing spouses “lose” is a spouse with a propensity to cheat, which is no loss at all.
What NHSparky said: It fits some, I am old, AND I do use a cane…
Still, I don’t much care for kids under 40 or so. In some dictionary youth can be described as defined by George Bernard Shaw: “Wasted on the Young.”
Well, TSO, the one crime you committed was discharging a firearm within city limits.
Hey, as a hockey player I will fall on a simple defense…..no blood, 2 minute minor and you better not miss a shift…..hoser.
Jen, having written a brief or 40, I have to ask exactly what brief are you talking about? You know that there is a difference between a legal brief and “briefing a case” for law school don’t you? TSO – a law school graduate – laid out a fact pattern to show that “victimless crimes” are prosecuted all the time. I strongly suggest that you refine your reasoning and communication skills before you attempt to represent anyone because you are not making your points here.
Keep in mind that “harm” is often damage to a class. It is illegal to fire a firearm in the city because of where the bullet may go – regardless of whether it actually hits anyone or not. It is illegal to take someone elses property with the intent to deny them the use of that property, whether it has value to anyone but the owner or not. It is illegal to represent ones self as a medical professional because someone may assume you will be able to handle a situation and rely on your representation to their detriment – there does not have to be any actual harm.
In this matter, Mr. Strandlof raised money under the pretense of being a vet – money that might have gone to legitimate groups if not for his fraud.
The other legitimate harm is that many if not most of those claiming to have these decorations are jackass scumbags. It diminishes what a decorated veteran is in the eye of the public.
As to alienation of affection, it is a tort not a crime. I believe, however, that adultery is still a crime in some states.
Damn but you guys are weird. The only person here who makes any real sense is Jen, and you all are doing nothing but insulting her. (Jen, please ignore them; they know not of which they speak.)
Several of the acts in this hypothetical scenario are clearly crimes against persons or peropty and are not victimless crimes. The concept of “victimless crimes” should be understood as acts committed by consenting adults which do not harm the person or property of another
The crime of endangering minors or attempted murder are understood to be crimes against persons – particularly attempted murder (granted, what entails danger to minors may, in some circumstances, be more ambiguous). It sounds like there are several other acts in there which are also crimes against either person or property.
The best writing I know of regarding the concept of victimless crimes is the essay, “Vices Are Not Crime” by Lysander Spooner, an abolitionist of pre-Civil War times, lawyer, and writer who IMO has never been fully appreciated. “Vices Are Not Crime” can be read online here:
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm
Now please, quit throwing sand and play nicely.
Typo correction (why don’t I ever see these before I hit the subjmit button?):
peropty = property
Also, I should perhaps clarify for anyone here who does not understand, the whole concept of “victimless crime” is a philosophical/political view, not a legalistic argument. It is very much a part of a libertarian view on the criminal justic system — not the way it actually is, but the way it should ideally work in a libertarian society. Maybe the responders here did not understand that.
Just when I was beginning to think this blog was for veterans in general, not just former-JAG types, this thread comes along.
Debra,
if two, no, lets make it three, law school grads support a well constructed argument for “victimless crimes,” and a law student repeatedly misses the point, how is said law student the only one “making sense?”
TSO,
your hypothetical was more complicated than anything (save trusts and estates) that was on the IN Bar exam last summer. I suspect you’re going to crush the criminal law portion.
I didn’t see any well constructed arguments for “victimless crimes.” Could you please point me to where they are?
TSO wrote, “…I tried to think up as many crimes as possible without a victim to show them how ridiculous such a legal theory would be. Somewhat not surprised I didn’t get any answers.”
How does this make sense? There were a number of acts in the hypothetical which, in fact, are crimes against person or property. So I don’t understand the whole point.
Debram are you serious?
THe kids were given vitamins, not injured.
Herbert is dead, and therefore beyond harm.
I broke into the football field, but no one was harmed.
I shot at VT woody, but he was neither hit nor aware, so he is not harmed.
Yes, NUMEROUS laws were broken, and all with no harm being done. Which was my point before everyone got insane over this. I was arguing that any basis in law which requires harm would also require murder to be successful, would require threats to be carried out, would require them to succeed in other words for the harm to transpire.
Did you guys really not get that? I am flabbergasted.
OH, and it occurred to me afterwards that I actually did commit a crime with harm in my hypothetical. I stole the gun from the heirs of herbert, since ownership would transfer to them. Regardless of his spoken wish to me to have them cremated with him, I believe it goes to the heirs first, although I may be mistaken. Either way, without looking at his will, we’ll never know. Also, it doesn’t fit the theme of victimless crimes, but since I called myself out, so be it..
But in the sense that it is a civil versus a criminal matter, is there a “victim” per se, or would it be better classified as an aggrieved party?
THEY ARE VICTIMS.
Aggrieved party is closer to it. I use victim in the sense of that is the person to whom the harm would acrue, not victim like “victim of a mugging” although they might often be the same.
I guess that’s the difference between a cop and a lawyer.