Grex Storage Conference

View Responses

Grex Storage Item 48: The victimless crime. [linked]
Entered by bradly on Fri Jun 2 00:10:58 UTC 1995:


        Recently I read that prostitution is LEGAL in the state of
   Nevada. Should prostitution be a crime?

        I always thought that every crime had a victim;
   but does prostitution have one?

                Please share you thoughs freely.

10 responses total.

#1 of 10 by omni on Fri Jun 2 05:44:55 1995:

    Yes, and sadly it is the woman herself that is the victim. She sells
her body, then if she has a pimp, and most do, she must give him 30 to 90%
of what her price is. There is also the drugs to consider.
  When she gets old, and more unattractive, she is cast aside for younger
more pretty women.

#2 of 10 by chelsea on Fri Jun 2 13:45:59 1995:

Hey, a lot of wives fit that description.  Maybe we should haul
them into the jails too.
.

#3 of 10 by chelsea on Fri Jun 2 13:49:38 1995:

Or maybe the husbands should go to jail?  

Is it more "moral" to have sex with someone out of obligation
or fear of what will happen if you don't than to do so
willingly for financial gain?

#4 of 10 by ajax on Fri Jun 2 16:36:38 1995:

  My understanding is that in Nevada, where prostitution is legal but
regulated, the traditional abusive pimp-prostitute relationship gives
way to a house of prostitutes run as a business.  I'd guess that
employees would be quite well paid; I've heard 6-figure incomes are
common for marketable strippers around here, which is probably our
most similar legal "sex" industry.
 
  Re #1, if you think the high occupational hazard of drug addiction
is a reason to ban prostitution or that prostitutes are victimized,
perhaps we should also ban the practice of medecine, to prevent
doctors from being victimized!  I know there's slimey encouragement
for people to get into drugs, but unless people are literally forced
into doing drugs, that's their choice.
 
  In this country, the statement "every crime needs to have a victim"
doesn't really hold up, unless you consider the criminals to be
victimizing themselves whenever they break the law (in fact, I read
that an inmate just sued himself for that very reason).  Trespassing
or blowing through a red light when nobody's around hurts nobody, but
it's still a crime.

#5 of 10 by aaron on Fri Jun 2 22:44:06 1995:

In Nevada, each county has the option of making prostitution legal or
illegal.  The prostitutes in Nevada's legal brothels, on the whole, fare
much better than their outlaw sisters.

#6 of 10 by marcvh on Sat Jun 3 06:13:20 1995:

Trespassing is a violation of somebody's property rights; it has a well
defined victim, although the extent to which the victim suffers may be
rather minor.  Actions which generally threaten public safety are a bit
trickier to reconcile, but traffic violations certainly have at least the
potential to expose nonconsenting victims to risk.

"The woman herself is the victim?"  Please.  So why is the victim taken
off to jail?

#7 of 10 by mcpoz on Sun Jun 4 01:33:37 1995:

#8 of 10 by ajax on Sun Jun 4 14:20:53 1995:

  Traffic laws say "don't blow through a stop sign," they don't say
"don't blow through a stop sign when it could expose non-consenting
victims to risk."  Okay, another example...you find some marijuana
growing in your yard, so you harvest it to dry.  That's a crime.  If
you harvest more than an ounce, it's a major crime.  Who's the victim?
The plant?  No victim needed, just potential victims...same with
driving through stop signs in the desert.

#9 of 10 by marcvh on Sun Jun 11 11:34:19 1995:

Who are the potential victims of harvesting marijuana?

#10 of 10 by ajax on Sun Jun 11 16:11:09 1995:

  Personally I view drug possession as an essentially victimless crime.
But I think the way society views it is that drug dealers hook invertibrate
people against their will, so those dealers are victimizing their customers.
Also, a lot of crime crops up surrounding the illegal drug industry, simply
because it's illegal; drug gangs have turf wars, and addicts commit petty
crimes to feed their artificially-high-priced habit.
 
  And since drug possession is kind of equated to drug usage (which is also
generally a victimless crime), the use of drugs could endanger people, if the
drug makes a person lose self control.  Kind of like drinking and driving;
the drinker probably won't kill anyone, but the odds of it go way up.  Plus
there's a medical cost to society for drug usage...we're victimized by having
to pay more for a drug user's medical care.
 
  But all those "potential victims" are kind of stretching it...I still think
there's no pre-req for laws that they need to have victims, or even potential
victims.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.