Proposed fix: put the right not to be charged with a victimless crime in a constitutional amendment. (this should be a much loved amendment for those true freedom lover in the US, that are all cringing at the incarceration rate)
Alas, in this case it turns out that it is also one of those "everybody knows" things where everybody turns out to be wrong, and that is covered very early in the article.
That's what makes the article interesting--it is not just another article about how our prisons are stuffed to overflowing due to victimless crime. Instead, it finds that that explanation is wrong, and goes on to work out what is actually going on, which is a lot more interesting.
Note that if the question instead had been "why are there so many people in America who have been in prison" rather than asking about people who are in prison, then it is possible that victimless crime would be the answer.
Anyways, I feel like we have courts to interpret these things. The existing amendments are interpreted in a variety of convoluted ways depending on the scenario.
If we leave it up to the courts, it's not worth the paper its written on.
So just fine the person and make them do community service.
Which is usually what the courts do for DUI without a victim assuming the accused lawyers up.
Drunk driving would fall into that category. However something like illicit drug consumption would not.
Unfortunately the only way this would happen is over a lot of dead bodies or if you spend three generations boiling the frog.
People are too addicted to using overt state violence (as opposed to obfuscated state violence, i.e. fines) to prevent people from engaging in behavior they don't like or risky but not guaranteed harmful behavior. The idea that you could get a DUI or sell heroin and as long as nobody gets hurt the max penalty would be a fine, community service, etc. etc. is just unacceptable to them (despite that being the typical end result in those cases assuming the person charged lawyers up). You can already see this in the comments.
That's a good idea, but much harder to implement than it sounds. Being a small time drug dealer may be a victimless crime to many people, but it certainly isn't to parents who've had a teenager who's OD'd.
And then there are crimes like insurance fraud, that don't hurt any one individual, but do make the cost of living higher for everyone else who's premiums go up as a result.
TLDR; it's very hard to determine which crimes are and are not "victimless".
I’d err on the side of avoiding false positives and say that only actions impacting yourself receive the protections of an amendment. Ex:
* not wearing a seatbelt
* consuming drugs
Families lose sole providers and parents have to bury their own children.
If not I don’t understand how the proposed amendment could make this situation any worse than it is now, while it may help many other situations.
but even without that: everyone should be allow to tweak themselves how they see fit. that's just basic tolerance to me.
putting people in cages because they trade chemicals that people seek to induce happiness is to me the main atrocity here.
Isn't the reason that heroin is way, way worse?
To me being an addict is not a problem. I see coffee/nicotin/alc/TV/porn addicts every day and call them my friends'n'fam. No problem. It's "their choice", and they dont look bad for it in my view.
In some cases addiction comes together with other behavior that do make people look bad to me: not taking responsibility, being a cunt, etc. Those behaviors I do look bad at.
And with not wearing a seatbelt, you are the victim, along with your loved ones and the rest of us who have to help bear the cost of the emergency response to accidents involving major injuries or fatalities.
I find the point about financial burden to society more interesting because it’s hard to articulate a clear test that would indicate whether society is a victim or not. A few others have made the same point as you. I’d love if anyone has ideas here.
What about that person?
Also, if financially burdening society is a crime, then we ought to imprison CEOs of tabacco and alcohol companies. What about abundance of sugar in food where it doesn't belong, unhealthy lifestyles, etc. Where is the line that preserves any liberties?
And before you say it's obvious, alcohol and McDonald have both ruined more lives than weed ever did.
We can come up with more or less obscure but real examples all day. That's not how laws should be designed.
A sharp swerve tends to make you lurch to the side relative to the car, which tends to cause you to turn the steering wheel more or less than you intended to turn it. A properly used seat belt limits the extent of that lurch.
If you've got access to a big empty parking lot, it is interesting to do some testing making sharp turns with and without your seat belt. That belt makes a lot of difference.
A relatively simple system would be to require the state to articulate who the victim is. It is then a constitutionally protected defense that the alleged victim was not a victim. Regarding the insurance company, this seems like the exactly the type of scenario that corporate personhood was designed for.
Reigning in LEO/DA/judge discretion would make the system more fair and potentially prompt the public to demand we fix the broken laws since they would be more likely to be subjected to them rather than let off the hook. I've seen people admit to crimes and be let off the hook based on discretion when others have not. I've seen DAs violate their office policy to ignore misconduct allegations against LEOs - not just performing a shotty investigation, but deciding not to investigate at all even though it's part of a case they are prosecuting. I've also seen a judge give contradictory reasoning in the same case to the detriment of the defense (said lack of a record means they are denying the motion from the defense, when the defense later said they had a record he then said no prior records were allowed to be used).
Changing the mindset of the public from "those criminals deserve it" and truly believing in innocent until proven guilty would also help with the bias defendants face in the system. The first person to call the police is labeled as the victim and that carries a huge bias that affects police and DAs to the point that they don't perform though investigations. In science and other logic based fields you at least think about the devils advocate perspective to verify you are right. This doesn't happen in law. As soon as they get the evidence to "prove" you are guilty, they stop looking. You could have a valid defense or have information that one of their facts is wrong if they investigate a little deeper, but they won't. This puts the defense at a disadvantage since the police and DA have much greater power to investigate than a defendant does. This victim/complainant positive bias will only get worse with things like ex-parte red flag laws and Marcy's law. These are popular with the public, yet in many cases undermine constitutional protections. We even see that things like PFAs are being sought without basis with the intent of weaponizing them in divorces. And this is done with the knowledge of and even pressure from the lawyers, who are supposed to be held to the ethical standards of the bar.
We also need better oversight and higher standards for those who run the system. I've seen a trooper contradict himself multiple times in official reports and in court, one of which I believe was an outright lie to the judge. The investigator said it was just a misunderstanding and they did not care about the contradictions. Any other witness would have been discredited. I doubt they logged these contradictions as Giglio information for future cases. Magistrates in my states aren't required to be lawyers or even pass the bar in my state. I've had magistrates believe that they were being called prejudiced when being asked to dismiss a case with prejudice. Unreal.
Cost of prosecution is covered by the government and virtually unlimited. Cost of defense, other than the indignant, is not covered and can outweigh the cost of pleading guilty and paying a fine. You aren't reimbursed after being found not guilty. This means you can be punished (pay more) more as an innocent person than if you were guilty. How is this justice?
Most cases are settled in plea deals. Many people settle because they could be held in jail while waiting. In many states, if you're not in custody, they consider a speedy trial as anything that starts withing 4 or 5 years. So much for that constitutional protection.