The Instigator
Chang29
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Jackninja5
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Government should not punish a person for harmless actions

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 5 votes the winner is...
Chang29
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 585 times Debate No: 66612
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

Chang29

Pro

Since, violating a law of personal conduct, public order, or regulation compliance is defined as crime. Because, it is immoral for a government to punish a person for an action in which no harm is done to another person's body or property. Thus, a person should not be punished for harmless actions.
Jackninja5

Con

Out of all things that were open, I got this :P

But anyway, harmless actions can be against the law. Stealing for example should be punished. If it wasn't, what is the point in buying things? But in truth, it really depends on the trial and what they have done.
Debate Round No. 1
Chang29

Pro

My premise is that harmless actions should not be against the law and should not lead to a trial. Looking at an extreme example of Driving Under the Influence (DUI), which most people agree is a serious crime. Mothers Against Drunk Driving implies that in 2012, 10,322 people were killed in accidents caused by DUI. As everyone will agree killing a person is a serious crime, yet many look for reasons to categorize actions before an action also as a crime. The intent should only matter in determining between manslaughter and murder, intent should not be the crime. Killing a person in a vehicular accident is the same crime regardless of driving state. A person that is a known terrible driver for any reason is not punished for their lack of ability. A person that forgets to wear their government required glasses is not stopped at a checkpoint to ensure compliance. Just because a person is a hazard does not mean they should be punished.

Just suppose, a person is unquestionably drunk that person drives their vehicle successfully to another location without harming another's person or property, and stays within traffic laws, this person should not be punished for being a potential hazard. Yet, if the person is stopped at a checkpoint this same person will be punished for DUI. No person's body or property was harmed, yet penalties are harsh.

Lesser crimes against social norms, crimes like sodomy, prostitution, alcohol sales, property code violations, and the like are all crimes without harming another"s person or property. No person's social values are more important than a person's individual liberty. Therefore, for a law to define an action as a crime there must be a victim.

I hope there is enough there to make it interesting for you.
Jackninja5

Con

Actually, you make a good point so let's say you win :P
Debate Round No. 2
Chang29

Pro

The points are solid points, yet most will disagree.
Jackninja5

Con

I agree with you now so you should win :P
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by gordonjames 2 years ago
gordonjames
Wow - I was expecting a good debate.

There are so many issues here.

The concept of a victimless crime is a huge area of law.

The issues include
Prostitution
Traffic violations (should speeding be a crime if there is no accident caused?)
Drug abuse - Should it be a crime - the drug user may become a burden on society?
Risky behavior - your motorcycle accident will cost the medical system (say Obamacare) and raise taxes.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Chang29Jackninja5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by matspub 2 years ago
matspub
Chang29Jackninja5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: way better
Vote Placed by inaudita 2 years ago
inaudita
Chang29Jackninja5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Chang29Jackninja5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con concedes!
Vote Placed by gordonjames 2 years ago
gordonjames
Chang29Jackninja5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Annoying non debate