zlacker

>>Ozarki+(OP)
I think the attacks on some of these black and gray markets has increased violent crime in the real world. I wish the federal government would stop shutting them down and instead use them as tools to build cases against people breaking the law.

For example, for a while most prostitution and sex work seemed to be online, on places like Craigslist right next to ads for used furniture and jobs. And it seemed to be really effective in getting prostitutes off the streets.

Now that those markets were shut down, I'm seeing here in Seattle we're having pimp shootouts on Aurora and the prostitutes are more brazen than ever. Going after Craigslist has had a negative effect on our cities and has increased crime, and I suspect going after SilkRoad has had a similar impact.

>>nostro+6n
I wish instead of criminalizing addiction we'd fund harm reduction centers and rehabilitation services.

I would much rather the police be focused on stopping violent crime rather than these victimless crimes.

Legitimizing drugs/prostitution makes is easier to regulate and ultimately make safer. Shoving this stuff into a black/gray market is what ultimately creates violent crime.

>>cogman+Mr
no victim means no crime. victimless "crimes" are just 'arbitrary rule' violations (like going 56mph in a 55mph zone) or infractions. the twisting and distortion of language by the state is counterproductive to society.

>>floydn+Ez
How does that make any sense? So you could never pass a law to reduce risk because in most cases, breaking it won’t create a victim?

Speed limits are done to reduce the risk of you killing someone. Do you really think you should be able to drive however you want and until you actually have an accident, it’s fine?

>>echoan+sU
if you cause no harm, how could it be a crime? an infraction, sure. a rule violation, sure. but calling a small rule violation which never causes any harm to anyone the same thing as rape, murder, assault, carjacking, etc, is just pure degeneracy of language.

>>floydn+cs4
The crime is increasing the risk to other people. Why does that not make it a crime in your opinion?

If I try to shoot someone but miss and they never even notice, is that fine because there’s no actual victim?

Edit:

To be more precise, the crime doesn’t even need you to increase the risk to anyone. Just thinking that you’ll increase the risk is already a crime, even if you’re wrong. If you buy a prop gun but think it’s real and try to shoot someone, that would still be attempted murder, even if it couldn’t even have worked. But you’re punished for trying to kill someone, it doesn’t matter wether you’re incompetent at it (well you get a bit less for the attempt compared to the actual successful act but it’s still a crime).

And another edit because coming up with weird hypotheticals is fun:

Imagine planting a bomb with a one hour timer on a marketplace and when it goes off, the marketplace was empty of people by chance.

Does that mean that the worst punishment you should expect should be for property damage because someone needs to clean up the ground? Obviously you committed a crime, even if there’s no specific victim this time.

>>echoan+Aw4
an attempted crime is an intent to harm another. even my autocorrect could finish that sentence.

but we have a separate crime category for those already. "attempted murder" etc. those are crimes because they intended to be a crime, but they just failed for incompetence. it's a lot harder to prove in court (rightfully so).

i would say that i agree with you about attempted crimes, if that helps.