How Can There Be A Crime Without A Victim
On tonight’s broadcast, Rob made statements that the regulations on tobacco encourage the government to put regulation on other consumables as well. Soda drinks was one such consumable that was mentioned. All of these regulations and laws can be grouped in the classification of behavior control, regulating what a person does with their own person independent of others. Another classification that is often used is that of ‘victimless crime’ since in order for there to be a real crime there has to be a victim and a perpetrator who have to be different people.
Robs comments jogged my memory of a case many years ago when someone in Texas appealed his conviction for not wearing a seat belt. Although he lost his appeal, one of the judges sharply dissented writing the following:
In adhering to the principle that government can legitimately punish behavior only when it inflicts harm on another, but not when it is self-harmful or merely unwise, I echo the view expressed by both Louis D. Brandeis and John Stuart Mills. Brandeis evaluated the ‘right to be left alone’ as ‘the most valued by civilized men’. .... John Stuart Mill wrote in his political discourse ‘On Liberty’, ‘The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection… The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others…The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Because I am afraid that if we uphold the authority of the State to punish one’s failure to use a seat-belt, we are one more step on our way to an Orwellian society in which the State can punish merely for smoking cigarettes, for not brushing one’s teeth, or for being foolish, I must dissent.
Considering that this was written in 1987 before there were bans on tobacco use, one can see how prophetic the judge was in his dissenting decision. Have we already reach the Orwellian society he predicted? As we seem to have become comfortable with the various restrictions in our personal lives, I can’t see anything impeding us from that nefarious achievement.
