Are victimless crimes only hurting the person committing the crime or do you think that society as a whole suffers as well? Should some of these actions be decriminalized? Thoughts...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
“This blog is a place for you to expand on class discussions, discuss current events, and to give your opinion on given topics. You may comment on the opinions of others and build on their thoughts as a group. Each new post will stay current to the theme we are discussing in class and your responses should reflect your growth as a student of Sociology.”
Welcome Back Students
Hello - and welcome to the Sociology class blog for Mr. B. Please register at the bottom of the page so you can begin blogging! Please write down your user name and password in a safe place! Please choose a user name that I can identify!!!!!!! Feel free to explore the old responses to blog questions on the site.
15 comments:
I think that victimless crimes are mostly hurting the person themselves, and maybe even there family but also, these crimes can be hurting society as a whole too. Victimless crimes happen every day and the more they happen, the more people do it. With the spread of these crimes more and more people could be hurting themselves, which is weakening the society as a whole. Sometimes its hard to see how gambling could hurt more then just the gambler, but if you look at the bigger picture you will realize that the more people that gamble, the more popular it will become and the more people will be getting hurt. hence the hurting of our society
I agree completely with hailey, she's almost left me with nothing else to say. Vicimless crimes obviously hurt the person who commits them, but overtime, they do take a toll on the society as a whole. Just like Hailey said, the more people do something, the more popular it will become. I think that certian actions should be decriminalized. A good example is marijuana. I think that a big reason for kids to smoke marijuana is because it is illegal, thus they they think they're so cool because they're being "bad." I'm not necessarily saying that Marijuana should be legalized, I just think that things like this should be further explored.
I believe that victimless crime is only hurting the person comitting it, most of the time. For example, not wearing your seatbelt when you are in the car. Who is it hurting? If you get in an accident, then it's hurting you. Or if you get a ticket for it, it's hurting you as well. A popular victimless crime would be consumption of porn. People may say it's hurting you, but it's hurting only you. It's helping the people distributing it.
I believe that victimless crimes hurt the person committing it the most, and society suffers as well. For example with prostitution, yes it is hurting the person who is doing it because they are stuck in that lifestyle of selling themselves for sex, but many sexual diseases can easily be spread throughout society. Also if someone commits a crime and dies or gets hurt, the family and friends that love and care for them don’t physically suffer, but mentally. It is probably hard for families to watch a family member fall to rock bottom because of a drug addiction. Victimless crimes affect the people around the person committing the crime. People may lead by that person’s example and more and more people can get turned on to drugs, prostitution, or other victimless crimes.
I agree with hailey also crimes that only hurt the people doing them have nothing todo with society butthe more people commit them it starts to effect the society & its everyday flow of less victomless crimes so i feel that we need to start coming down on people who do them so that we can keep the victomless crime level down before it turns into something more.
I think that victimless crimes hurt the person themselves. But it also hurts people around them. For example family members of the person that is committing a victimless crime. If someone is addicted to drugs or smokes pot, it will hurt their family members to see the way the person is suffering and not realizing it. If something bad happens to the person committing the victimless crime, people that care about them will get emotionally hurt and very upset. Another example is that victimless crimes can lead to violent crimes. If the person is under the influence of drugs, then they will end up doing something bad and physically hurting someone without realizing. I think some actions like marijuana should be decriminalized because people are going to be doing it still no matter what.
"Victimless Crimes" are most definitely things that hurt society as a whole. With drug use and such, you may argue the drug-user is the only one being harmed, but does his habit have no effect on society? Since he buys drugs from a drug-dealer, isn't he fueling a deviant subculture? By allowing these things to happen or by decriminalizing any "victimless crime", deviance is fueled. If you let drug-users use drugs, they will obviously continue to use drugs and so the drug-dealer will be able to continue selling drugs and over time it becomes highly likely for more members of society to use those drugs. If you let a prostitute do her business, thinking she only harms herself, you fuel the deviance and let it spread. More people will think it's okay to prostitute, and society suffers. No matter what "victimless crime" you use as an example, it will have an effect on society. Allowing deviance of any kind is wrong, and by doing so society is hurt. Maybe the immediate effect of "victimless crime" is only felt by the one doing the crime, but there is no doubt that the effect doesn't end there. All of society is affected, no matter what.
I think every one has good points. But, i think victimless crimes mainly hurt people themselves. I agree with the fact that it can affect the people around them, but in the end they hurt themselves the most. In my opinion, i think with victimless crimes the people who committ it are the only ones who really have to face the serious consequences with themselves because of what the crime caused. But, with other crimes other people are the ones who have to face the serious consequences due to the crime that happened to them. And im not talking about the punishments from the courts or anything, but from the actual crime itself. For example: prositution, you're the one doing the crime and you're the one who's going to get diseases and you brought that upon yourself. Also, with illegal gambling and drug use, you are the one who's spending your money, causing yourself to go in debt or damaging your body from drugs. Once again, that's all that you bring upon yourself. In other cases like murder and burglary for example, the crimes are being done to other people intentionally by killing them or stealing things from them. You're bringing that upon others. But, with victimless crimes the crimes are being done intentionally to themselves and not others. I think that's the difference and why they call things like prositution, illegal gambling, illegal drug use, and vagrancy, victimless crimes.
I agree with everything said but I think that the example of prostetution doesn't work. This is because many prostetutes are abducted then hooked on drugs and forced to have sex by their 'pimp'. Therefore it isn't the woman that is making a choice, it is the man and his actions are those which are affecting the community. Without the man and the other people who are employed to abduct these women then there would be no problem. Also the men who are paying the pimp to have sex with a woman are the other cause of popularity of this illegal trade. This is because if critical mass is reached betwee the people paying, rates wil go up and therefore less prostetutes will be created and demand will go down saving many women from this terrible fate.
I agree with people that said victimless crime is not always harmful to the perpetrator itself. A good example of my reasoning is when someone drinks alcohol and drives. They are endangering themselves and other people either on the road or in the car. Also, doing other drugs may affect other people as well. When people take drugs, they aren’t themselves. So when someone gets out of control, there is a big possibility that they can hurt someone. Some society definitely suffers when someone commits a “Victimless” crime. And therefore I believe that these crimes should stay crimes.
I believe that victimless crime hurts the person but mostly society. The fact that the person gets "hurt" or pays the price is justified but not for society. If a person is driving drunk and hits a woman and her child, society has suffered. The drunk driver, if still alive, pays the price for the woman and child getting hit or killed but the family of the woman and child have to suffer for it. No matter what the crime is it affects society, which is why it is labeled a "crime" in the first place. It is an act of deviance which has consequences.
I think i agree the most with Karley because what she said was true. Most of the time victimless crime only hurts the person committing it but in some cases like prostitution it sometimes affects the other person. In some ways you have to look at it with a social imagination because the little things the person is doing could be affecting others (the bigger picture). For example gambling, a man could be gambling his family's money away and in that case it effect someone else.
Victimless crime IS A CRIME, no matter the cost or priority of the situation. Because only the one who Commits the crime is hurt, it is safe to say that a victimless crime claims no lives. Wrong. Just reiterating the same example, a gambling man may throw away his family's rent money on Classic Lotto. But, if it gets too be too much, eviction may soon follow, forcing he and his family out on the streets. And had the gambling led to anything worse, debt may become a dark cloud over the head of that man. Its an idea or concept of cause and effect. What one does now, has harmful results later.
Victimless crimes are not just hurting the person doing the actions, but they are hurting those around him. The crimes like drug using are hurting the people that care about the user. They could potentially lose a loved one, or the user is wasting their families money.
As long as people have the ability to interact with each other, anything anyone does will affect their society, on some level. The lines between "good" and "bad" affects here are shady. Of course something that a society has labeled as a "crime" will, no matter how victimless, (let's say one victim: for instance, only the perpetrator) negatively affect the society as a whole. However, if these actions weren't viewed as crimes, they'd, in some cases, not have these affects. Decriminalization as evolution, not submission, should definitely be put in place where appropriate. It's a matter of sifting out which crimes would be best if regulated, instead of made illegal.
Post a Comment