No victim, no crime.

Don't punish the 'morality' and don't punish the motive


Why is this idea important?

Taking drugs and prostitution are two examples of victimless crimes – the 'morality' of the activities should not be punished. Not declaring your income or not paying import duty (on drugs) would still be a crime, as would human trafficking and abduction (in relation to prostitution)

If person C attacks person D they should be punished, but person B should not recieve a more severe sentence for attacking person A just because person A is a vowel. 'Hate crime' is a form of social engineering whereby a crime is punished more severly depening on the motive or simply because the two parties have some sort of difference that may or may not have been a factor. *



*I don't think motive should be a factor in sentencing as it is wrong to punish 'thought crime', however by that logic pre-meditated crimes should not be sentenced differently either which I'm not sure about.

Should crimes (violent for instance) that are planned be punished more harshly because they were calculated rather than a spur of the moment loss of judgment? I would be interested to read what people think in the comments and whether you know if planned crime is currently generally punished more harshly (e.g. going to someone's home to attack them compared with a violent attack of a stranger in the street) and whether or not you think it should be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.