I just read an interesting blog post by a police officer who rants about how courts do not put offenders in jail long enough. He points out how most offenders have already committed previous offenses, but the courts or incarceration system has already released them.
I think we can all see that the courts and incarceration systems release non-rehabilitated predators in massive numbers. Most of those predators go out and victimize more people. The government could have prevented those repeat offenses simply by keeping the predator in jail or prison.
However, the jails and prisons have neither the resources nor the space to keep inmates any longer, let alone to actually rehabilitate them. As a result, it releases these victimizers.
We can free up space, funds, and resources by legalizing victimless crimes. The enforcement of victimless crimes costs the United States hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Non-violent drug “offenders” make up over 25% of the inmate population in the United States. Instead of releasing victimizers early, we could stop the authoritarian enforcement of victimless crimes.
What do you think?
Saturday, December 29th 2007 at 7:23 pm
I would define a victimless crime as a behavior outlawed even though it does not entail offensively hurting anyone against their will or anyone else’s property.
Crimes such as rape and murder have victims (e.g. the “rape victim” or the “murder victim”).
However, a government can outlaw behaviors that do not entail victimization. By doing that, they make a victimless crime. These can include drug use, consensual sex, or anything you do that does not hurt anyone else.
When a government forcefully stops someone from committing an act of victimization (such as rape or murder), it thereby protects the would-be victim(s).
In contrast, when a government forcefully stops someone from committing a victimless act, it has not protected anyone else.
Thanks,
Scott
Thursday, December 27th 2007 at 2:07 am
What is victimless crime?