Is there such thing as a victimless crime?


You will probably say yes and that is correct but how many are there and how are they not harmful? There is about one. Is having a knife in your pocket acting like its wrapped up when you have just bought some, cardbord wrapping paper or other things to wrap a knife harmful?Well yes because the Police can ask for a receipt but there is a other piont ,let's say you got it from 'Morrisons' and the till person ask you if you want your receipt and you can say yes or no and you said No.As well the police could check in morrisons and ask them and say "have you binned a recept of a knife"and they say yes but it was from the wrong person and you get away with it or not because they might of not had one because they dont sell knives a recipt of a knife.

But is setting a tree on fire harmless?Yes but why because nature is fragile like us we are all animals so setting a tree on fire is not a victimless crime as you can hurt\kill animals (including us). Let's say you use a lighter for lighting the tree on fire and you lean on the tree before you light it also forget leave the lighter behined you will be 'Red handed'and took into prison and be asked why you did it and probabaly get locked up for about 2 or 3 years.So this wont be a victimless crime.

Comments (7)

  • Morley-Newlands-logo-250x250.jpg majestic_bat
    Morley Newlands Academy 16 Jan 2019

    There could be a such thing as a victim less crime because someone could walk through a farmers farm and the farmer not knowing and they could walk through their crops.

    Reply to this comment
  • Tiff-Avatar.jpg Tiff @ the BNC 16 Jan 2019 in reply to majestic_bat's comment

    Would the farmer be a victim here as they wouldn't be able to make money from the destroyed crops.

    Reply to this comment
  • Faringdon-logo-250x250.jpg fantastic_duck
    Faringdon Community College 16 Jan 2019

    For crimes that many people may consider ‘victimless’, there may not be any direct victim at all, but however, I think that these laws are put in place to hopefully prevent other laws from being broken. Take for instance, taking drugs. Many people may class this as a victimless crime as it appears to have no direct victim. However crimes, like drugs still have victims. People take drugs, it is sadly a choice that some people make, but it is a choice and the only immediate victim is themselves, a choice they have knowingly made. However, taking drugs can often result in death. Also, by taking drugs it makes the chance of other crimes more likely, they could drug drive, which is illegal because most illegal drugs affect the way the brain reacts. This means if they are driving they may have slower reactions and could possibly crash into someone, resulting in someone dying as a result of them, which is a crime, they could be trailed for manslaughter.
    My point is that although ‘victimless crimes’ like drug taking will either cause harm to the person who is committing it, which is their choice but the problem is, it will cause harm or increase the likelihood of causing harm to another person. And that person, is a victim, because they have been negatively affected by another person’s choices.
    Actions that many people think are victimless, that many people campaign for to be legalised should stay in place, not because it will definitely cause harm but because of the likelihood it will cause harm to others, the increased risk it poses to others or the harm it causes to the general community.
    For your example of setting a tree on fire, that may seem like a victimless crime, I think it could be classed as a victimless crime, as animals or humans may not necessarily be affected, but that it should still be a crime because of the vague chance that someone is affected by it. Someone might walk by it and be set alight or it might catch in a gust of wind and light other things on fire or many other things could happen as a result. My main point is that although something may well only negatively affect the person who is committing the crime, and that is their choice, and if the case is it only negatively affects them it should be legalised as long as they are a consenting adult, but that these crimes should still be a crime because of the chance that other people may be negatively affected by it, and that is not fair. Victimless crimes may not have direct consequences but may well have indirect consequences as a result and that is why many things considered victimless crimes should not be because they indirectly affect someone else in a negative way.

    Reply to this comment
  • Tiff-Avatar.jpg Tiff @ the BNC 16 Jan 2019 in reply to fantastic_duck's comment

    Is the weather more of a prediction than fact?

    Reply to this comment
  • Graveney-logo-250x250.jpg beloved_chocolate
    Graveney School 17 Jan 2019

    I think that there is such a thing as victimless crime in places where women do not have equal rights as men. In countries such as this, it may be illegal for women to do many things, such as riding bicycles, yet many women still do. If they are not caught, this is a victimless crime, as doing this does not harm anyone in any way (nobody is harmed by somebody riding a bicycle, unless they crash), and does not harm the person who has committed it as they do not get penalised. Actually, I think that this crime may even have positive effects, as it promote women's rights and helps to camapign for equal rights for everyone, not just men.

    Reply to this comment
  • Noel-Park-logo-250x250.jpg authentic_moon
    Noel Park Primary School 18 Jan 2019

    Me and my partner (agreeable_blackberry) have came up with this statement, If there is a "victimless" crime out then there is no point even talking about the "victimless" crime because the victim is the only one who knows the most information and we think that there is no such thing as a "victimless" crime because every crime needs a victim or it is more or less not a crime and a victim is the only one how knows the most information about the situation.

    Reply to this comment
  • Faringdon-logo-250x250.jpg fantastic_duck
    Faringdon Community College 22 Jan 2019 in reply to Tiff @ the BNC's comment

    I think that the weather forecast is more a prediction then a fact because a fact is 'a thing that is known or proved to be true', and the weather is, quite often not true, or at least not completely accurate. For instance today, the weather forecast for Faringdon was, for 3 o'clock for 'Light rain showers and light winds'. This wasn't terribly off but definitely wasn't correct as it in fact snowed reasonably heavily for most of the hour. It is impossible to predict what the weather will do, especially for long range forecasts as the atmosphere is changing constantly.

    So the weather forecast isn’t fact because it is not 100% accurate, as it is impossible to predict it with 100% certainty but it is a prediction because it is based on evidence. Scientists can give a pretty good prediction of the weather based on weather patterns, levels of humidity and wind and cold/hot weather fronts as well as many other factors. And using these factors, they can predict from past experience what it will do.
    For instance when Michael Fish, said on a BBC weather forecast in 1987 "Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard there was a hurricane on the way. Well, if you're watching, don't worry, there isn't!". When according to Wikipedia ‘That same evening, the worst storm to hit South East England for three centuries caused record damage and killed 19 people.’

    So, in summary, the weather is more a prediction then a fact because, although the attempt is made to make it as accurate as possible, it is not totally correct most, if not all of the time and for something to be a fact it has to be true, and the weather often is not. And that is why even if the weather forecast says it is not going to rain, I will always bring a raincoat.


    Reply to this comment

You must be logged in to post a comment