The Dark Side
Use the form below if you would like know when this page is
updated.
|
|
It is my considered opinion that a crime is an act
which is morally wrong, when a specific individual or group wrongfully suffers
a tangible loss as a result of an unjust action by another individual or
group: i.e., when an identifiable victim is injured by a conscious act
undertaken by the crime's perpetrator against the
victim: If there's no victim, then there's no crime - although
the act in question may be illegal. During 1982, Libertarians in
Rochester, NY introduced me to the idea that a crime occurs when someone initiates the use of force
against another person. At the time, and ever since, I have spent a lot of
mental effort trying to identify situations where an act should be
called a crime that does not involve the initiation of the use of
force - and have been unable to find any. Thus, the definition of what a
crime is that I have come to accept is as follows:
|
An entity is a natural, artificial,
real, corporate, or otherwise self-aware individual. A crime occurs when an entity (the perpetrator) initiates the use of
force against another entity (the victim) and causes the victim to suffer a
specific, tangible and identifiable injury as a result
of that initiation of the use of force.
|
Without much effort, anyone can easily think of many laws prohibiting things
that do not fit the criteria identified above. (I'll discuss some of them
below.) What, then, are these laws that allegedly turn innocent acts into ones
that are called criminal? The laws themselves are crimes perpetrated by the government that imposes them
against the populace they are imposed on. Where the only
legitimate purpose of a government is to protect the rights of the citizens it
governs, such laws are the seeds of the ultimate downfall of the
government that makes them: People will not long respect a government that
seeks to punish them for things they know to be acceptable activities, and
when crime is the way of a government, its subjects will soon follow its
example.
A law student tried to tell me that laws which prohibit things where there is
no victim, where there is no initiation of the use of force, are ones that
create statutory crimes. According to this
person's opinion, the illegal acts are a "crime" because the statute
says they are. (I am appalled at how willing this person is to blindly let
anyone in power decide what is right or wrong!) However, if there is no
victim, the only reason an act would be illegal is because the opinion of the government
in power at the time the act is outlawed is that the act is
"wrong." What gives one group (government) the right to impose their
opinion on other people, against their will? NOTHING, if the truth be known and recognized:
By imposing their opinion against the will of their subjects, the
government has initiated the use of force against the populace, and
have become criminals by doing so. Anyone incarcerated as a result of
violating a law where nothing more than opinion is used as its justification
(i.e., there was no victim as a result of the action undertaken by the
person who is incarcerated) is a political prisoner
of the government: Their only "crime" is that of having a different
opinion from those in power.
In all cases where a person is held as a political prisoner, the prisoner is the victim, and
the government that holds them is the criminal.
Another class of wrongful laws are those which define "victimless crimes:" By
using an oxymoron to classify these acts, the government itself is admitting
the error in their ways: If there's no victim,
there is no crime.
Who is injured by prostitution or recreational drug use, for example?
In the case of prostitution, where two adults enter into a business
relationship for the gratification of one's desires by the other in exchange
for money or other compensation, there is no victim and punishing
either party for the transaction is unjust. (If the prostitute is a child, or
otherwise incapable of voluntarily entering into the transaction, the "buyer"
has initiated the use of force, which is a crime - but in that case, the crime
is not prostitution, but instead sexual misconduct, which is a
completely different matter.)
In the case of recreational drug use, the only person who may be
injured by the drug use itself is the user - and people cannot commit a crime against
themselves, only against another individual. The biggest direct
problem with recreational drugs is the users tend to lose their ability to
discern right and wrong, and end up committing crimes during their state of
temporary insanity. If a person knowingly elects to use a recreational drug,
and knows the effects it has on their inhibitions, they assume all
responsibility for their actions while under the influence of the drug at the
time they take it - and must be held accountable for any crimes they
commit while under its influence.
On the other hand, if someone drugs another person
against their knowledge, not only have they committed a crime against the
person drugged, but they have, in effect, committed any and all crimes that
the drugged person may commit while under the influence of the drug.
Likewise, if someone gives another person a drug and knowingly misrepresents
its effects, or fails to inform the user of its effects when they know the
user is ignorant of its effects, they are guilty of misrepresentation
and any wrongful subsequent actions taken by their victim as a result of that
misrepresentation.
In the cases of both prostitution and recreational drug use, the acts
themselves are not rightfully called crimes. However, in both cases, truly
criminal acts - robbery, assault, vandalism, and even murder - often accompany
what would otherwise be a peaceful event. This happens partly because of the
laws that prohibit acts which are not fundamentally wrong - either
because the lawbreaker cannot report the crime
because they will be charged with a "crime" themselves (in the case of
prostitution), or because the lawbreaker cannot legitimately get enough money
to pay for their activity (often the case with drug use) because prices are so
high to cover the risks taken by dealers who would otherwise be legitimate
businesspersons. The laws prohibiting "victimless crimes" thus cause real
crimes to occur, either in support of, or as a result of, the prohibited
activities.
In general, "victimless crimes" are activities that are prohibited because
those in power consider (in their opinion) the act to be something
wrong. Since, by definition, "victimless crimes" have no victim, the only
reason they are considered to be a crime is because of the opinion of the person or group that prohibits them.
Once again, a person who is punished for a "victimless crime" is being
punished for having a different opinion from those in power.
In all cases where a person is punished for a "victimless crime," the person being punished is the victim, and the government
that imposes the punishment is the criminal.
"Voluntary" negligence - willfully choosing to ignore conditions or
consequences that will have adverse effects on other members of the community -
is just as much of a crime as if a person had undertaken to commit the crimes
through direct action: The outcome is the same, and results from the same
source - a conscious decision to follow a path of action (or inaction).
Involuntary negligence, however, is not a
crime and cannot rightfully be called
a crime: If a person truly has no advance knowledge, or reason to suspect,
their actions will have an adverse effect on others, their ignorance is just that - a lack of knowledge,
which is not, and cannot be a criminal act: There is no way any
person can know everything, and to try to hold someone accountable for
something they don't know is truly an abrogation of justice.
The biggest problem in most cases involving negligence is determining whether
or the negligence was voluntary or involuntary. In probably the
majority of the incidents, the offender should have
known their actions would result in injury to the affected parties.
The determination of whether a perpetrator actually would, should or
could have known what the result of their action or inaction would be
is where much litigation arises from.
Only if it is determined that the person causing injury through negligence
did so by willfully ignoring relevant information
does a crime occur. If the consequences were the
result of legitimate ignorance of the outcome of an action or inaction, then
no crime has occurred.
competition - "stealing" customers is not a crime as long as the customers
voluntarily change their minds about who to do business with; business losses
are not injuries, but are instead failures to achieve expected profit levels
due to customer choices; voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit must be the
coin of business and trade
unions have been used to protect workers from exploitation and as a tool to
exploit management; the former is protection from crime, the latter is
execution of crime
courts of justice vs. courts of law; the former looks at issues of what is
right vs. what is wrong, the latter merely at what is legal vs. what is
illegal; the two groups of decisions are not a coincident set
restitution is the only proper form of punishment for a crime
Return to the top of this page
Please use the following form to request priority for this page. None of the
fields are required (unless you wish to be notified when this page is updated),
but we would like to know who you are, to help us have a better understanding
of our community. We would therefore appreciate it if you fill this form in
as completely as you are comfortable with. Any information you submit on this
form will be held in the strictest confidence.
Philosophy: Driving, Taxes, What's wrong with America, and more
|
