Different types of Crime

[BishopMVP]

Reading the thread Fritz started and the Marijuana one led me to think about the different types of crime. Before I start, I will say that in this respect I consider myself a libertarian. After looking through those threads and thinking some, I believe there are 5 types of crimes.

Type 1: Violent Crime
Examples: Murder, Rape
Acknowledged as wrong by almost everyone, violent, intentional crime like this that affects another person physically is morally reprehensible and punishment should be severe. In my opinion, a person who commits a crime like this should go to jail for a long time.

Type 2: Non-Violent Crime
Examples: Stealing
Also considered wrong by almost everyone, intentional crime that affects another persons property is also morally reprehensible and clearly illegal. As for punishment, the judge should have room to be lenient and room to be harsh. A person stealing a loaf of bread to eat because they can not afford it is not as bad as a CEO stealing millions, but it is still wrong.

Type 3: Crime which affects others unintentionally
Examples: Driving drunk and killing someone, Disturbing the peace
These crimes still affect others, but it is not intentional. I still think they should be punished just as severely as Type 1, but others may disagree.

Type 4: Victimless crime with dangerous potential
Examples: Drunk driving, Speeding
Here is where serious questions start emerging. I do not think these should be illegal, but I am not entirely certain. If it is true that speed limits are set at 85% of the optimum traveling speed, then say the speed limit on a highway is 55, there is no one else on it, it is a clear day and someone decides to go 65. Is this directly affecting anyone else? No. Is it beyond what is safe on the road? No. What if they get in an accident and society is forced to pay the costs of their treatment and recovery? I think they have the right to be an idiot as long as it does not affect anyone else. Darwinism in effect.

Type 5: Victimless crime that, if enforced, erodes respect for the law
Examples: Parking the wrong direction, Marijuana use
Laws like this are incredibly stupid in my opinion. Anytime I do something like this that is illegal it probably increases my willingness to commit more serious infractions, but when I am doing it I see nothing wrong with it. These types of laws are supposed to prevent problems, but they seem to me to merely lead to a lack of respect of the law.


I do not think I have fleshed out this idea as much as I want to, but I was wondering about your thoughts on the issue. Personally, I think that things such as the "War on Drugs" and speed limits are very bad. The War on Drugs is filled with so many problems it is ridiculous, but basically it has changed from a misguided initiative to curb drug use into one that is measured by the number of dealers arrested. As for speed limits, these are stupid in my opinion. Trying to set a uniform speed limit for the hundreds of different car models that travel on a given road in dozens of different situations is ridiculous. The speed limit on the nearby 2-lane highway is 45mph. Today it is snowing, about 6" so far, and is it safe to go 45mph? Hell no. On another day, when it is clear and there are no other cars, is it safe to go well over 45? Yes. Other judicial initiatives I have serious reservations for, if not outright hostility are the 3-strikes law, the felony-murder law and any minimum-sentencing guidelines. Basically I favor fewer laws, but more meaning to these when they are applied.

[Grid Iron]

[SOAPBOX]

The main flaw with this poll is that it is difficult to define "victimless" crime. For example, drug use is considered by many to be a "victimless" crime. In the abstract, that may be true. A drug addict sitting at home, smoking or injecting a controlled substance will likely have no impact on my life.

However, most people don't realize how drug users victimize other people. Drug addicts neglect their children due to drug use. They prostitute their children for drugs. They break into people's homes and steal to pay for their habit. They acquire severe mental problems such as paranoia and become violent due to drug use. They encourage children to use drugs. They provide drugs to children to take advantage of them sexually.

Unfortunately, the image of the "War on Drugs" portrayed by Hollywood is quite different from reality. Hollywood makes it seem that the War is about locking up drug users. As a prosecutor myself, I have fought this so-called "War" first hand and know that the "War" is about treating users, not imprisoning them.

First of all, simple users of drugs DO NOT GO TO PRISON. At least in California. In fact, first-time users of even hard core drugs don't even get convicted. They get "diversion" where they get treatment. If they don't seek treatment or clean up, the judge puts them in county jail where they are forced to attend "boot camp" programs to get them cleaned up. These are typically in medium security facilities with just chain link fences. They end up going to a lot of Narc. Anon. meetings. If they still don't clean up, the judge keeps putting them in jail until they learn their lesson.

Generally, only drug dealers go to prison. And even then, a first drug dealing offense is 4 to 6 months in jail coupled with drug treatment. The people who go to prison for extended amounts of time are the big-time dealers (pound or kilo quantities) or those who have prior convictions for dealing.

Caveat: This discussion doesn't reallty apply to marijuana. In my work experience, I know that marijuana use is a far cry from the "hard core" drugs such as meth, heroin, coke, etc. . ., and typically people who simply use a small amount of marijuana in California only receive a fine. Further, the effects of MJ are far less severe, and dangerous, than hard core drugs and don't lead to all the horribile consequences I mentioned in paragraph 2 above.

[/SOAPBOX]

Let the flaming begin . . .

[Qwikshot]

Doesn't every crime have some sort of victim?

[Blackadar]

It's tough to talk about "victimless crime". About 50% of all crimes are committed under the influence of either drugs or alcohol. So while I'm all for not prosecuting victimless crimes, there are a lot of "what ifs" that need to be taken into account.

Say, for example, that someone is driving under the influence of alcohol. They're not swerving, speeding or doing anything else illegal. But they get pulled over by the cops for some reason and take an alcohol test - it comes out .09, legally drunk. Now, is this a victimless crime? Right now, it is.

But let that driver get back on the road and even if they appear to be in control of their car, maybe they really aren't - or don't have full control. They hit someone and kill them. Then there's a victim. How do you legislate that?

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Blackadar
..... let that driver get back on the road and even if they appear to be in control of their car, maybe they really aren't - or don't have full control. They hit someone and kill them. Then there's a victim. How do you legislate that?

(More or less playing Devil's Advocate) IF he/she kills someone because they were driving drunk, then there is a victim, and you punish he/she under the law. You start getting into gray areas like if it was the other persons fault, but if the drunk driver was not drunk, he may have been able to prevent the crash. There is no straight black and white line here, but I guess what I am asking is should the government have the right to prevent us from doing dangerous things.

Originally posted by Qwikshot
Doesn't every crime have some sort of victim?

If you are driving on a road and you go 5mph above the speed limit, you are committing a crime. I know I have done this hundreds of times, and never been in an accident. If you look at drugs, take someone who goes home and smokes a joint to go to sleep. He is not affecting anyone else, so why shouldn't he be allowed to do what he wants to his body?


Grid Iron - You hear about the case out in Cali I think last week where the Jury convicted some guy of growing marijuana after the FBI suppressed the information that he was growing it for the city/state? I saw something where the jurors were going to write him a letter apologizing for their verdict after they found out about it after the trial. Since you are/were a prosecutor out there, do you have any insights or thoughts on that?

[bbor]

Why does every poll have a funny response?

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by BishopMVP

Type 4: Victimless crime with dangerous potential
Examples: Drunk driving, Speeding
... I think they have the right to be an idiot as long as it does not affect anyone else. Darwinism in effect.
...

As for speed limits, these are stupid in my opinion. Trying to set a uniform speed limit for the hundreds of different car models that travel on a given road in dozens of different situations is ridiculous.

For multiple reasons, these issues are very important to me.

Drunk driving should absotively, posolutely be a serious and punishable crime. I liken it to not only waving a gun around in a crowded public place, but just randomly firing in all directions into the crowd. If they didn't hit anyone with a bullet, should we let it go??

Abolishing speed limits (with the exception of some well-designed, controlled-access facilities) would be a disaster. Speed limits aren't designed to save an idiot from himself, they're designed to save everyone else from him. We could have cars going 40, 60, 80, and 100+ at the same time on the same road. Speed differential is a dangerous thing, and should not be encouraged.

I do believe in a high level of personal responsibility, so if someone wants to put his/her life, AND ONLY HIS/HER LIFE, in danger, that's one thing. The moment they put others at great risk, we have to deal with them.

[ACStrider]

I'd hate to think that the shoe bomber would be let off scot free simply because he was unsuccessful in setting the explosives off.

[ACStrider]

Dola...sorry, didn't ready the complete thread...victemless crime as in level 5...gotcha.

Uhh...I think you leave room for all sorts of problems...people driving through stop lights at reckless speeds on the off chance that no one else is going through them...kids engaging in behavior that doesn't have a "victim" but indirectly affects friends and family. I'm all for less govt, but there are some instances where I think a little government is a good thing.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by ACStrider
I'd hate to think that the shoe bomber would be let off scot free simply because he was unsuccessful in setting the explosives off.

Crappie and AC point out something, just because there wasn't a victim doesn't mean that there couldn't have been...in the shoebomber case, the people on the plane were going to be victims had the bomb gone off. In a drunk/high driver's case, it could have happened.

Yeah, yeah, 5 mph over the speed limit (actually some police officers hold a grace period of 5 to 10 over the limit).

As for right to body, now you get into drug use, abortion, self mutilation, etc...society votes for government to decide these issues, if you are unhappy, vote for someone who supports your views, or move to a country that fits them better...(I know you are playing Devil's Advocate, so I don't mean it intentionally).

[Grid Iron]

BishopMVP - Ed Rosenthal, who was permitted by the City of Oakland to grow and distribute MJ to those with cancer, AIDs, etc. under the California medicinal marijuana law, was convicted under federal charges of cultivating the drug. I am very familiar with that case as I work in the Bay Area.

Although the verdict/result seems very unfair, Ed and his attorneys knew exaclty what they were doing and knew what the result would be. It was simply a "test case."

Ed was put on notice long ago, before he was arrested, that even if the City of Oakland allowed him to grow/sell MJ, the feds could prosecute him. He continued to do so because he, and a MJ legalization group, wanted to get the case into federal court as part of a political agenda, whether it be public awareness or seeking out a favorable ruling by the very liberal federal appellate court in CA. Ultimately, he wants to make his pitch to the Supreme Court that the federal government shouldn't trump state's rights to legalize MJ. The Supreme Court probably won't do that. However, he also is hoping that the Supreme Court will say that the judge should have told the jury about his deal with Oakland. If the Supreme Court does decide that, which they probably won't, then MJ distributors in CA basically won't be convicted as long as they have deals with their local cities (which many of them do).