DISCLAIMER: Can a sole victim of a crime also be the perpetrator? I've used this argument with drugs before, but I want to specifically exclude that topic from this discussion if possible. Although relevant, for the sake of argument, lets make an exception and apply it to everything else. I would also like to specify that in some extreme cases forced medical care while not being charged of a crime may or may not be acceptable. Again, that's not the issue. ----------- Can/Should a person ever be charged of a crime for which there is no other victim? The thing that brings this to mind is the recent bout of child felons we have convicted and put on a sex offender list because they chose unwisely to send pictures of themselves to untrustworthy people. I'm talking only of the original sender, not of anyone else who distributes the picture, in those cases the crime is clear (although on a clearly different scale than child pornography usually implies). Although an interesting issue, the thing I would really like to get everybody's opinion on is the original sender, the child, the "victim". Aren't those laws there to protect the children? I cannot understand how we justify putting them on a sex offender list when they have exploited nobody but themselves. Bad behavior as it relates to oneself should not be criminal, ever. That's my position, and "sexting" is only an example of the how the issue applies, not the actual issue. This discussion also relates to suicide attempts, ritual abuse, and ultimately, poor decision making in general. I'm hoping there is a fair amount of agreement on this, but if I'm wrong this conversation could turn ugly. I hope very much that I don't regret this post, but this is the only community I know of mature enough to MAYBE handle this kind of issue. That includes congress and most state legislatures :-D.
In the case of attempted suicide, I think the person should not be charged with anything. If they are not meant to be here, they will succeed in their suicide. If they are meant to be here, they will overcome their problems and be amongst society (the living). Either way, I think these individuals should be left in peace. As far as sexting? I think the law has to be very careful on this. What if someone sends you naked pictures without you asking for them? Either way, they will land in your email in box. I don't know, I think people have to use common sense on this and not go crazy. Just a few thoughts off the top of my head, Abner
I know that years ago, attempted suicide was a capital offense in South Africa. The last hanging in Grahamstown was a man who had tried to cut his own throat. This created a real problem as this was when hanging was primarily death by strangulation as opposed to from a broken neck and the stitching on his neck kept opening (he had cut right into his windpipe) and allowing him to breathe.
Oh man!!! It just seems so bizarre, kill a guy for trying to kill himself? Then his neck stretches open! Damn! The guy must have missed his carotid artery by focusing on the front of the neck. Sad either way. Abner
I worked a case on a girl who was 15 and looked 20. This girl aggressively pursued men for sex. In one case she climbed into a man’s bedroom window. This girl had so much sex she passed on STD's to the men she was with. In the end she made a list of all the men slept with along with the clothing she wore when she did. Basically she collected evidence of the crimes; I was forced to charge 14 men with sexual assault on a minor. She moved and did the exact same thing in another town getting four men charged. On the low end the men got a few years probation and had to register as a sex offender. On the high end they got a few years in jail. In the end there are no such things as victimless crimes. The guy who kills himself leaves a wife and kids behind to survive without him. If he does not have a family then we the tax payers pick up the bill. The drug addict has to get money from somewhere to by the drugs. Oh and when they OD and go to the ER who pays for that?
Aircraft pilots can run afoul of the law by fling into IFR when they are licenced for VFR, or by flying into controlled airspace (just happened in Washington State). I've heard of skydivers being fined for landing on private property or participating in BASE jumping. Then there are climbers who climb buildings without permission. Then there are DUIs where no-one, or only the perpetuator, is injured.
South Africa has no crediblity whatsoever with respect to modern law enforcement. The Saudi Arabian system actually makes more sense, as warped and extreme as it is, than the South African system. South Africa has abolished the death penalty yet has no problem sentencing an extraordinarily high percentage of its population to imprisonment in places like Pollsmoor Prison. This facility, and the entire S. African penal system, is 200 years behind the rest of the world. The fact that attempted suicide is a capital crime in South Africa isn't suprising. This whole "sexting" issue is absurd as well. The person doing it, if a minor, shouldn't be placed on any sex offender registry. However, the person receiving it is amenable to prosecution, again if the sender was a minor. If the digital photo was sent unsolicited then they should be able to press charges against the sender and sue the sender and her parents for damages. Attempted suicides should not be prosecuted but rather subject to involuntary civil confinement for the purposes of receiving medical (psychiatric) treatment. Ultimately a judge reviewing medical reports and testimony could decide when the person should be released.
You can say that suicide is a part of major depression and that if you treat the depression then the suicidal impulse will fade away. That's fine. But what about assisted suicide? Let's say that I'm dying of cancer. Should it be illegal for me to end my life in the manner that I prefer? Should it be illegal for somone to help me to accomplish this? Isn't this directly related to the question of abortion and the whole "it's my body, so I can do what I want with it." question but then doesn't that then bump into the whole drug abuse issue (it's my body . . . ). I think that a big part of why these issues remain so ambiguous in our world is that they run into other issues that people are not happy to grapple with. You can't talk about suicide without talking about abortion and a bunch of other issues related to the big BIG general question of "Who gets to decide what happens to me?" or "How much control do I really have over my own self?" If you're interested in these ideas then you might want to look at this DL program (wasn't that just a super smooth transition?) MA / MSc in Philosophy and Ethics of Mental Health
Just a couple clarifications: Putting somebody in serious immediate danger is a crime with a clear cut victim; therefore, DUIs and serious drug addictions are different than recreational drug use and other topics I suggested. Those who is seriously addicted to drugs probably makes up the vast minority of those who have used them (and one use often = felony). Also consider the case of "sexting" between minors of similar age who are relatively older where the pictures are not distributed and the recipient is willing, this would also be (in my mind) a victimless crime, except perhaps for the sender, who would also be considered the perpetrator. Attempted suicide is a very saddening event for a family and friends; however, behavior that is upsetting should not equate immediately to a crime--nobody is in danger aside from the victim, no assets are stolen or in danger. I believe we can understand the severe implications of a mentality that criminalizes bad decision making. I know I wasn't going to go here, but oh well. Bad behavior while on drugs or alcohol has specific laws relating to the specific behavior such as DUI, public nuisance laws, vandalism laws, and violence laws. These laws, not laws against drugs should enforce stopping people behaving badly on drugs, in my opinion. I have every right to make bad decisions about my health, and usually mild drug use stops there (if even that). Good posts, I'm very interested in the reactions! I'm also sorry for not responding to every good post so far but I have to run.
So far I'm with you. In my experience, if you can sit down with a person and talk to them about these issues then you get one response. Once people group up however, you often times get a different response based on the pwer of the person who becomes the leader of the group. This is why we have a curtain to shield us when we vote.
I have never heard of the phenomenon you describe. If that is true, then it sounds like an overgeneralization of the law, probably as a result of amphibolous wording. Those laws, as you said, were meant to protect children, not to convict them. Consider another case, one with a somewhat different moral dilemma. A child performs a lewd act on camera, alone. That child waits until he/she is a legal adult and then begins selling the video that was made. The crime committed, obviously, is child pornography, even though the sole creator and distributor is the one who is also considered the victim. This case can be made even stranger if the video was made 1 day before the 18th birthday and sold on the 18th birthday. The same crime would have been committed.
That does muddy the waters, but I believe the same rule stands, even more-so. The child is now an adult, and can make the decision. There's no victim, and therefore, no crime. Perhaps anyone who purchases it or continues to distribute could be considered to have committed a crime (and only if they are aware of the age), but I don't think the originator of the work should be charged. Also, an idea I had for the specific issue of child pornography and other kinds of abuse, one should have stipulations (for example an 18 year old dating a 16 year old with inappropriate pictures is not committing the same crime as a child molester). If the intent of the crime can be determined by certain objective criteria, perhaps we could minimize the damage to kids having too much fun, or an adult and a "minor" of nearly the same age. I believe some of these stipulations are already in affect in some states. Of course we must take care not to let the real criminals get off on technicalities, but I think it can be done.
I have fond memories of Objective Criteria from when I was younger. My parents even used to dress up as it and give me presents. *Sigh* The good old days.
