The Instigator
Rockylightning
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
mongoosecake
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Victimess crimes

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,640 times Debate No: 13219
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Rockylightning

Pro

My opponent must prove that victimless crimes should have penalties.

Thank you in advance for this debate.
mongoosecake

Con

Alright, I have reluctantly accepted the challenge.

My argument is that even though no one is necessarily harmed in a victimless crime it is still technically labeled a 'crime.' Whether or not each of these individual crimes should be questioned as to whether it is legal or not should be another question for another time. To not penalize the crime at all even after acknowledging it is a crime would be to encourage future crime. I think that very small and very reasonable punishment should be used to deter crime.

Let me explain:

Pretend you as a state decide to say: "Prostitution is illegal" but you refuse to even arrest prostitutes, tell them they're breaking the law and give them at least a very small amount of punishment. You can already see there would be more prostitution in that case if no arrests were even made to let anyone know it was illegal than if any prostitutes were arrested at all.

In fact, victimless crimes can even encourage non-victimless crimes. Pretend a 12-year-old boy takes snap shots of himself nude and puts the pictures on the Internet. In this case there is not necessarily a victim at all. He taken snapshots willingly of himself. To not at least ground him for a few days or make him work community service for an hour or two would be to encourage him or at least not discourage him from posting nude photos on the Internet again. This might encourage pedophiles to post pictures of their own kids, and this crime would not be victimless. Further this might increase incidences of children being molested or abused. That's why congress ruled on child pornography in 2003 with the "Protect Act." (http://www.nytimes.com...).

So to conclude I think reasonable punishments could discourage future crime. To not punish at all would be to not acknowledge there is any offense at all, and as I have already shown there are cases where a victimless crime might lead to more non-victimless crimes.

To conclude, small and proper, carefully thought out punishments on 'victimless crimes' can discourage further victimless crime and even non-victimless or regular crimes.
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Pro

Refutations:

"This might encourage pedophiles to post pictures of their own kids, and this crime would not be victimless."
I do not see the connection. Your drawing a conclusion too far out.

"Further this might increase incidences of children being molested or abused. "
That is a slippery slope fallacy.

"To not punish at all would be to not acknowledge there is any offense at all"
The million dollar question is, is there an offense in victim-less crimes?

=Contentions=

1. Victimless Crimes by definition are victimless.
2. Victimless crimes do not hurt anybody.
(more points may be brought up in later rounds)

Contention one (short): Victimless crimes by definition are victimless.

Victimless crimes: A term sometimes used for various acts that are considered crimes under the law but apparently have no victim. [1] If a victimless crime has no victim, then who are you protecting by penalizing it?

Contention two: Victimless crimes do not hurt anybody.

Victimless crimes as stated before, have no victim. Therefore they do not hurt anybody (maybe the 'criminal' but there are many things that hurt the doer that are deemed legal, such as smoking) Victimless crimes are simply, somebody who has a personal belief that contradicts the law. If someone has a personal belief that sex before marriage is wrong, and they get into the government, they might make a law that you cannot have sex before marriage (they will most likely call it a form of rape, but that is irrelevant.) This is an example of a victimless crime. But is it really right for some [highly religious] person to take the joy out of other people's life because of what they believe? Of course not.

And for these reasons, victimless crimes should have no penalty. My opponent's case has been negated.

Sources:
1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
mongoosecake

Con

Maybe these weren't the best examples but I stand by them.
I will present better examples in round 2 as well.

Me: "This might encourage pedophiles to post pictures of their own kids, and this crime would not be victimless."
"I do not see the connection. Your drawing a conclusion too far out."
Not really, I knew a creep back in high school who got addicted to kiddie porn online and started posting molestation videos of his little sister. So yeah, it may not be universally true but there's at least one example.

Me: "Further this might increase incidences of children being molested or abused. "
"That is a slippery slope fallacy."
Not really, if it's supported by evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
I'm glad you haven't disagreed that not punishing the crimes will increase the crime.
But I stick with my argument that these victimless crimes are for the safety of the public.
Take prostititution for example. Women are putting themselves in dangerous situations and are at an increased risk of being murdered. I think it's fair for the government to try to reduce extremely risky activity.
Drugs, DWI, speeding, parking in no parking zones. All are victimless crimes and all increase danger to other citizens of the public, so it would be absurd to not punish any of these. It doesn't matter that no one was hurt, the fact is more dangerous acts are being prevented. And no this is not a slippery slope each have a direct causal relationship and are proven to increase danger.
http://en.wikipedia.org.... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

"But is it really right for some [highly religious] person to take the joy out of other people's life because of what they believe?"
How do you know they're highly religious? A lot of non-religious people believe in punishing these crimes. But yeah it's OK if their punishments are going to decrease dangers for other people.
My opponents negations have been negated.
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Pro

"Maybe these weren't the best examples but I stand by them."
Voters please note.

"Not really, I knew a creep back in high school who got addicted to kiddie porn online and started posting molestation videos of his little sister. So yeah, it may not be universally true but there's at least one example."
There's a difference between watching and uploading. Uploading is not a victimless crime. There is no connection between watching and uploading child pornography in your example.

"Not really, if it's supported by evidence."
Child pornography is NOT a victimless crime. The children are the victims, therefore this argument is invalid.

"Women are putting themselves in dangerous situations and are at an increased risk of being murdered."
Oil rig operators are putting themselves in a dangerous situation and are at risk of being killed by an explosion. Does that mean the government takes their jobs? Sometimes prostitutes are just regular people who cannot find jobs. The amount of prostitutes is directly related to the % of unemployment. Women usually do not want to become hookers, but are forced to in desperation.

"Drugs, DWI, speeding, parking in no parking zones. All are victimless crimes and all increase danger to other citizens of the public, so it would be absurd to not punish any of these."
First of all, parking in no parking zones is not dangerous, you cannot be hit by a parked car. Second, drugs, DUI, and speeding ARE NOT victimless crimes, all of these are known to directly affect other people, not every time, but commonly. A drunk driver can hit another car and kill him, therefore this is not a victimless crime.

"How do you know they're highly religious? A lot of non-religious people believe in punishing these crimes. But yeah it's OK if their punishments are going to decrease dangers for other people."
First, I put highly religious in brackets, meaning sometimes. Second, I was trying to prove people with private agendas will try to make victimless crimes illegal, such as abortion. There is no victim in abortion, but Christian fanatics still want to outlaw it because "God told them too".

My opponent has not clearly refuted any of my points and has not defended his points. The ones he did defend were with personal experience, bad logic, and false examples.

Thank you and for these reasons you should:

=Vote Pro=
mongoosecake

Con

mongoosecake forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
aw come on man
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
please don't forfeit
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
not all. What would be known as a major victimess crime.
Posted by mongoosecake 7 years ago
mongoosecake
OK, I am somewhat considering accepting this debate Rocky. But do I have to prove that all victimless crimes should have penalty?
Posted by mongoosecake 7 years ago
mongoosecake
Nvm it's already been accepted lol
Posted by mongoosecake 7 years ago
mongoosecake
I will accept if you accept my pending debate Rocky.
Posted by mongoosecake 7 years ago
mongoosecake
Lol I don't know if I can argue against this. . . why did you challenge me haha?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
RockylightningmongoosecakeTied
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 said that not enforcing laws against victimmless crimes against prostitution would lead to more prostitution. This debate was not about that it was about whether it was right to prohibit vicitmless crimes.
Vote Placed by Loserboi 7 years ago
Loserboi
RockylightningmongoosecakeTied
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:13 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
RockylightningmongoosecakeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60