Crimea without Harm are Harmful - Research Paper Example

No-harm Crime Are Harmful I. Introduction Actions that are criminally prosecuted without a complaint being filed, a victim involved or occurs with the consent of all (adults) concerned is a ‘no-harm,’ public order’ or ‘victimless’ crime. Activities such as gambling, prostitution, pornography and drug use are, generally speaking, illegal but many would argue should not be because it does society more harm than good to prosecute people for no-harm crimes. One of the reasons concern how personal liberties are diminished in favor of society’s apparent need to legislate morality. A second involves the criminal justice system. Cases are backlogged, prisons overcrowded and law enforcement time is devoted to crimes that affect no one but the perpetrator themselves instead of crimes that do affect others. It can be argued that criminal activity increases when laws designed to dictate morality are enforced. In addition, the legitimacy of the entire justice system is in question due to the hypocrisy of no-harm laws. Thirdly, no-harm crimes are the invention of the majority race and disproportionately targets minorities. No-harm crimes do great harm, more so than they prevent. II. Harms of No-harm Simply because society is offended by an action or considers it immoral behavior, such as prostitution, does not mean the conduct should be prohibited by law. It’s no one else’s business what occurs between two consenting adults. On the other hand, prostitution leads to the spreading of disease which is a societal concern. Where does society draw the line between liberty and public interest? That’s the debate. Some say the participants in crimes such as this may hurt themselves and no one else but that is countered by those who say not all prostitutes are willing, that legalizing it leads to young girls being held as sex slaves in cities all around the world. Additionally, the act harms family members of the perpetrators. While all these arguments against legalizing prostitution are true, they are not valid, at least not in the context of the prevailing legal standard. Families are harmed by many actions such as an unwise monetary investments or negligence on the job that leads to termination and loss of income. Feeding children fast foods does harm to both the child and a society that must pay more in healthcare costs connected to diabetes and obesity. If prostitution were legal it could be regulated and taxed. Workers would be licensed, not enslaved in addition to being checked once per week for diseases. The moral arguments are inconsistent with norms of society. a. Biased Law, Biased Enforcement No-harm crimes are racially biased. It may not be the intention but has consistently been the case in practice. Those who influence and make laws are typically white and middle to upper class individuals. Those most affected by these laws tend to be poor minorities. The majority of prostitutes and their clients who go to jail are poor or lower-middle income. They are the streetwalkers. However, if a man of means rents an apartment for a “girlfriend” and visits her on lunch break it’s perfectly legal. Higher class brothels catering to mainly white Wall Street clients are not subject to the same scrutiny. Drug laws have been criticized as being racist because “the penalties have disproportionately affected African Americans, as their incarceration rates have risen dramatically relative to white drug users” (Bobo and Thompson, 2006). Homeless persons can be arrested for vagrancy or, in many communities, just for not having a home. Laws are meant not to help the homeless but to drive them away to other towns. A homeless man and a wealthy man could be “loitering” in a park when a policeman walks up. The one with a disheveled appearance will be questioned and possibly arrested due to no-harm laws. It is widely perceived that these laws apply only to the poor and powerless. Some goes as far as suggesting victimless crimes are thinly veiled racism. The evidence supports this sentiment. b. Drug Problem The criminal justice system itself is a victim of victimless crime laws. Drug possession laws, as an example, contribute greatly to overcrowded prisons and overburdened courts. A growing number of people are claiming it should be the violent criminals, the “animals” who are kept in cages not those who cause no-harm to others. Violent criminals are paroled early due to overcrowding. They are sent back out into society a hardened; unreformed threat to all they encounter. If drug possession were not illegal, there would be room in prisons for those who do harm to serve their entire sentence. Whatever portion of a police department sources are spent tracking down and arresting drug users could be spent preventing “real crimes,” ones that causes harms to others. “There is concern that enforcement of victimless crime laws may divert time and funds for the criminal justice system from other more serious crime and more important issues.” (Taylor, 2001). c. Credibility Factor No-harm laws can be applied subjectively by police officers therefore may encourage corruption to some degree. All policemen would arrest a burglary suspect but some might overlook a guy discreetly smoking marijuana in his own fenced backyard or his neighbors playing nickel-ante poker in the garage. The officer may even join in (the poker game). These laws are constructed based on the morality of a certain group at a certain time in history. Times change and not law enforcement officials, from cops to district attorneys to judges are guided by the same moral compass, at least not precisely. These laws are not and cannot be enforced equally creating a credibility factor. The overreaching laws also, according to some, impede personal liberties and the very concept of freedom, a viewpoint that diminishes the respect for the justice system as a whole. “These laws are difficult to enforce, since they are usually not even reported, and provide goods and services that are in demand. As such, the laws are likely to be violated, weakening law abiding behaviors.” (Veneziano, 2012). Because no-harm laws are often associated with corruption within police departments and organized crime involvement, the entire legal process suffers from a negative public perception. d. Organized Crime Gambling, prostitution and drugs are simply goods and services for which a substantial demand exists. Because they are illegal the market must be driven “underground” in an effort to escape detection. Organized crime thrives in this environment, a circumstance which heightens the opportunity for police corruption. No-harm crimes actually encourage criminal activity. The war on drugs was lost 30 years ago but billions dollars more have been spent since then while thousands more have been killed from drug gang violence and untold numbers of lives ruined due to having a police record. Alcohol prohibition should have set the example for what not to do. Police busted barrel of liquor, bootleggers were arrested and bars were shut down. People still drank but they bought from criminals. Organized crime grew immensely during prohibition and has made a strong resurgence during the prohibition of drugs. If protecting the public were really the motive then tobacco would be illegal and marijuana sold in every convenience store. It’s just another inconsistency in the law, another reason to lose respect for the legal process, the guiding force of democracy and foundation for society and the nation. (Veneziano, 2012). III. Counter Argument Proponents of keeping no-harms laws often claim that if drug sales and prostitution infiltrate a neighborhood following legalization, the crime in that area will increase while property values decrease. Liquor stores are seldom seen in the more affluent neighborhoods. The parts of town that encourage questionable behaviors encourage more serious types of crime. The evidence is in every city. If so called “no-harm” activities are sanctioned by the law, drug shops, house of prostitution and gambling halls will increase dramatically and along with it more crime, the more harmful type. “Disorder and victimless acts should be discouraged so as to protect neighborhoods and residents.” (Veneziano, 2012). Conclusion While laws prohibiting victimless activities were enacted for a reason, there are many more reasons to decriminalize them. Homosexuality used to be a crime as did interracial marriage. These were and are victimless crimes but offended a certain group’s sense of morality and decency. People sounded the alarm against legalizing both saying these behaviors would spread throughout society. They were right but the fact remains - they do no-harm. In a liberty loving country, it is inconsistent to criminalize actions that affect no one but consenting adults, in other words, are nobody’s business. Most agree with this principle whatever side of the no-harm discussion they are on. The laws are hypocritical and make a mockery of the justice system. Laws are what tie a people and culture together. Without the Constitution there is no country. When the people of a country no longer respect its laws, the validity of those laws along with the collective perception of country itself is diminished. No-harm laws are harmful to the individual, the justice system and the country as a whole. Works Cited Meier, R.F. & Geis, G. Victimless crime? Prostitution, Drugs, Homosexuality, Abortion. Los Angeles: Roxbury Press. 1997. Taylor, R. Getting tough on crime: What does it mean? Free Inquiry, 21 (3), 32–33. 2001. Bobo, L.D. & Thompson, V. Unfair by design: The war on drugs, race and the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Social Research, 73 (2), 445-474. 2006. Veneziano, Carol A. Ph.D. Victimless Crimes. Southeast Missouri State University. January 9, 2012. Web. November 10, 2012 Read More