The Instigator
eyeballsac
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imnotacop
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Crimes Should Have Victims

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
imnotacop
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 501 times Debate No: 67797
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

eyeballsac

Pro

Just to make everything clear with this subject, I'll list a few definitions:

Victim: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.
Crime: an action that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.

I personally believe that in order for anything to be "illegal", it should have a victim. For example, murder obviously has a victim. So anybody that commits murder should be punished, or at least kept from doing it again. Rape, theft, assault, all of these crimes have victims, and I believe that it isn't hard at all to see that things like that should be illegal.
I think that the biggest or most prominent issue that comes up when someone says "victimless crime" is drug-use. Just to name a specific example, lets talk about marijuana. When used safely, responsibly, and under the right circumstances, there is no victim. Nobody is truly "hurt". You may argue that the user is "harming" themselves, but that should be their own choice to make. If you actively decide to do something, and you feel like the pros outweigh the cons, and nobody else is "hurt" in the process, why should anyone stop you? Who could possibly believe that they should have more power over your own body than you yourself do?
imnotacop

Con

Crimes such as evasion or even traffic violations have the potential to create a victim and cause serious harm to our society while not entirely effecting another person. These crimes are preventive and make sense.
Which brings me to the point that it's better to prevent a victim than to deal with it after a person has been hurt in some way. If someone runs red lights, and you pull them over and eventually evoke their licence or even make an arrest to prevent it happening in the future, you're helping society more than if you waited for someone to actually be harmed in the process.
Debate Round No. 1
eyeballsac

Pro

You do bring up some important points:

"It's better to prevent a victim than to deal with it after a person has been hurt in some way."

But at what point do you "prevent" victims or not? Knives have the potential to injure or kill someone, but are you going to arrest everyone who owns knives just to prevent the possibility of something like that happening? It would eventually become a totalitarian society if anything that has the possibility of causing a victim is prohibited.

Also, another point that I would like to bring up:

What about supposed "crimes" that don't even have victims in the first place? For example, there have been people who have been arrested for "statutory rape", but these instances were not forced, but consensual. Not everyone under the age of 18 should immediately be looked at as if they are stupid or don't know what they are doing. Or even prostitution, in cases where both individuals are over the age of 18, is still illegal in many areas.
imnotacop

Con

You act as if this is entirely black and white. At no point did I say anything that implied either we ban everything that causes a potential threat or non of it, simply that some things are more obvious than others. There's a lot of grey area and nuance, and, making legal decisions, it's important to keep that in mind. While I'm practically reiterating what you're saying, this applies as much to you as it does to me. More so, considering you're the one arguing in favor of treating it as black and white, while I confront the nuance.
for instance, your point about knifes is both correct and wrong. It's correct in the fact that outright banning knifes does not make logical sense, as they hold a practical use, but wrong in it's nature. Because a knife hold a practical use, should we ignore the reality that it holds a threat as shown through history? There should be, and there are, laws in place to prevent crimes such as not allowing switch blades, concealed carry of knifes, ect. These make sense because they allow people to have the knife, but holds civil practicalities.
As to the point involving statutory rape, that is an argument entirely in itself. I'd be glad to debate you on that. Feel free to challenge me.
Debate Round No. 2
eyeballsac

Pro

eyeballsac forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
eyeballsac

Pro

eyeballsac forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
what about bomb threats? they don't harm anyone, yet they are essential to keep illegal.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
eyeballsacimnotacopTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by PatulousDescry 2 years ago
PatulousDescry
eyeballsacimnotacopTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con convinced me on his point of "Traffic Tickets" are an example of crimes that are made to prevent "Victims" I agree they are necessary.