1. Crimes against property.
2. Crimes against people.
3. victimless crimes.
Are there really such things as victimless crimes? If two people agree to do something and neither is hurt by the doing, or one person does it alone but no one is injured, what is the harm? Where is the crime? PeeWee Herman wants to know the answer to this.
•Not wearing a seat belt (and no accident has occurred)
Some of these are on the books because they offend public morals (that is, they violate the right of a community to set its own standards.) Some are on the books because they could possibly cost the public money (like you can drive without a seat belt if you want to, just don't ask us to send police or an ambulance if you hit a tree and get thrown 100 yards and get all cut and broken up.)
Can you think of others? I mean other TRULY victimless crimes?
And what if the act is beneficial to society but still illegal (such as beating up a lawyer or dragging a politician behind your car.) Should a person still be punished for those "crimes?"
Is there such a thing as crimes against society? If so, do "victimless" crimes fit in that category?
Is vigilantiism ever justified?
Should drug addicts be sent to prison because they rob homes to get money to buy drugs? Or should they be intensely counseled and mentored?
What about "hate" crimes? Stupid or needed? If it is a capital crime to murder a homosexual in Wyoming, will enhancing it with a hate crime add-on make the murderer take longer to die or what?
What if most of the people think something should be a crime (like screaming obscenities at the funerals of dead soldiers for the purpose of hurting the families) but the constitution says it is just fine and dandy to do that? People are just out of luck?
Inquiring minds want to know.