![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've put blasphemy back in. This is a free speech related offence. The fact that someone chooses to be offended by it, should not be the responsibility of the blasphemer. In a slander it is the person slandered that has the right of action. Since blasphemy is a slander against God, then only God should have the right to bring legal action, and not his self-appointed defenders. Eclecticology, Monday, April 29, 2002
Alex, your test determines whether or not the act is a crime, not whether it is victimless. To test the latter, you simply ask everyone who complains, "Are you God"? If they cannot prove that they are, then they have no standing to complain. --LDC
Hrmmm... Maybe I'm just weird, but don't have to actually believe in a given religion to blaspheme it? Otherwise it's just plain disrespect, which is another matter entirely. I could say "may God rot in Hell"; if I were Christian, this would be blasphemy; if I were an atheist, this would simply be an ironic and disrespectful description of attitude towards the Judeo-Christian god. One can also slander, libel, or defame the followers of a religion or cult, in which case injury does occur, and is prosecutable. But simply performing an act of blasphemy would be an internal matter for the religion in question, would it not? pgdudda
I'm not totally sure about it, but I think that in some countries it is a crime to offend the state itself, or the flag, the himn (not to stand up while it sounds), or the king, the president, etc. Shouldn't they be considered Consensual crime, just the same as blasphemy? -- Pinzo 09:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm removing mention of IP law from here. I happen to be a non-believer in those laws as well, but they are an entirely separate category since there is a clearly identifiable plaintiff in those cases (i.e., the author or inventor). Whether or not such a plaintiff has the right to complain about the use of his work is another matter, but it's not the same as the case of a crime in which the only plaintiff is the state. -- Lee Daniel Crocker
I didn't remove seatbelt laws, and they clearly do belong here. One can make thin arguments for "harm" to third parties caused by all of these things--that doesn't change their essential nature as consensual activities. Yes, in a society with public health spending, risky behaviors can harm others--but one could argue that that's a good reason not to have public spending on health care just as well as a reason to criminalize risky behavior. -- Lee Daniel Crocker
If no copyright owner can be identified, as in the case of a work of corporate authorship after several mergers and bankruptcies, then who is the victim of criminal copyright infringement? And if the author has been dead for 60 years, who is the victim? -- Damian Yerrick 03:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See also orphan works. -- Damian Yerrick 16:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As far as gambling and drugs concerned, one of the major arguments for laws prohibiting or regulating them is that indulging in them can harm others (for instance, a gambler losing all their money and thus lacking the ability to purchase essential items for their family), and the easiest and most humane way to protect people from this harm is to restrict access to the activity that can cause this consequential harm. -- Robert Merkel
I think the article should make clear that there are two entirely different ways to justify consensual crime laws:
Virtually all consensual crime laws are justified in both ways. Opponents of consensual crime laws discard the first type of justification as irrelevant and argue against the second justification by either
...and also that laws against such things often cause more harm than the things themselves. --LDC
"Denying" sounds too negative. I'd say "showing evidence against the harmful effects." -- Damian Yerrick
I removed:
..and will replace it with "statutory rape", which is what I think you have in mind. First, "pedophilia" is a psychological condition, not an act. It is not, in itself, a crime to be attracted to children--just to act on that attraction by actually molesting one. Second, the "pedo-" prefix assumes that the victim, even though giving apparent consent, is truly a "child", and therefore incapable of informed consent. "Statutory rape" is a better example here, because even the word itself makes clear that the reason it's considered rape is that the law says so. It is often prosecuted for relations among teenagers who are quite obviously not "children" in any meaningful sense, and who are quite worldly and experienced enough that their consent is fully informed and real, yet it is a crime anyway.
I've removed statutory rape as it is not fit for inclusion in the article. The article states in the introduction that the activities take place between consenting adults. This is, by definition, untrue for the case of statutory rape. -- Dante Alighieri 10:48 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It's important to note that there's a difference between "legal consent", and "consent" in a non-legal sense (ie, agreement). The problem with saying that statutory rape isn't a consensual crime is that the same argument could be made for cases involving adults - most notably, sadomasochism. In the UK at least, you cannot consent to assault, which is why it is illegal - but by the above logic, this is not a consensual crime! However, at the same time it should surely be noted that people do consent, in a non-legal sense, and that many people consider it to be a consensual crime. Mdwh 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
"Human reproduction outside ordinary methods, such as chemical or genetic interventions, birth control (illegal in many places), human cloning."
Cloning creates a human who has not (of course) given his/her consent to being a clone. It could have negative effects on this persons life and he/she could be considered a victim. I am not sure what is the meaning of "chemical or genetic interventions" and maybe it should be clarified.
"The black market, or trade in general in such things as unapproved products or unlicensed services (to willing and fully informed buyers)."
The term black market may involve trading with stolen goods or dangerous materials that the person buying them might not be able to handle properly. This is a risk for other people.
"Simple ownership of certain inanimate objects, such as guns, or substances such as plutonium or nerve gas."
The owner may not again be able to handle these objects properly. - XeoX
Many people would disagree that this is a "victimless crime". There are enough examples already without heading into murky territory.
Do we know enough about consensual kidnap to put that in the list, or is it already covered under other sections? 21:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Should this article be merged with the article on victimless crime? -- Serge 02:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Why bother with a vote if no one is objecting? I suggest that if no one objects, with good reason, by, say the end of November 2005, just do it. -- Serge 05:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have separated the two pages and now leave it to others to build on consensual crime and rewrite victimless crime so that it is not NPOV. David91 16:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following material:
As far as I know, there are no such crimes as sleep sex and necrophilia. Hence, the inserted passage starts off with a false step. If the sleeping partner is alive and there was no prior consent, e.g. by virtue of a subsisting sexual relationship, this would be rape or an indecent assault and so covered under the ordinary offences. I suppose there are offences involving the desecration of the dead in various jurisdictions, but since the "victim" is dead before, during and after the event, consent cannot be an issue. Thus, there are no sticky issues of any sort here. Unless you know better that is. As an aside, the links to assisted suicide and euthanasia both direct to euthansia, and euthanasia itself is not, so far as I know, an identified offence whereas complicity in suicide is, but... David91 17:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not the offender is the beneficiary is irrelevant because no-one can give a consent that would prevent this from being a crime. The crime is committed when penetration occurs with the relevant knowledge of death. Anyway, I fear that this discussion is original research. I do not think that any of the standard textbooks on criminal law would explore this detail. That said, it is quite interesting to think about the technicalities of it. Law can be fun. David91 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding David91's changes, I think the disagreement is that you are looking at strictly legal terms, whilst I am not. I said "i.e., Assisted Suicide", you moved this to later on to say it is only called that in certain countries. However, even in countries where this is considered murder, it is still known as "assisted suicide". This is not the legal crime, but the concept, and I feel that the article assisted suicide is far more specific and relevant that that of murder (which mostly covers it as a non-consensual crime).
Consider the difference between these two examples:
In the first case, we start off with the legal criminal definition, in the second, we start off with a non-legal description (which applies whether it is legal or not), and then specify that it could be considered illegal.
I believe that the first case carries the implication that these things are immoral (referring to S&M as "assault", referring to assisted suicide as "murder"). Also, terms like assisted suicide and sadism and masochim are used in all countries, and are nothing to do with the legal situation. Since we go with the second case for the other examples, I don't see why assisted suicide should be different. At the least, even if we start off with "Murder", I'd like to revert my "i.e. assisted suicide" nearer the top, since that is what we are talking about. Mdwh 23:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Incest between 2 consenting adults in various countries is a crime. Refer to the Incest page for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.222.12.252 ( talk) 03:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The last section of the 'Examples' section is written in a discussionary rather than factual way, asking if the reader agrees. It should be written in a more objective, citation-driven style Fones4jenke ( talk) 21:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Encyclopedic* Fones4jenke ( talk) 21:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I've significantly modified this section under examples. Regarding the edits I made, treatment options for HIV have improved enough that calling it a terminal disease equivalent to homicide doesn't feel right. I also removed the part about how partners "should" expect a warning for two reasons: 1.) it felt inappropriate to speak on behalf of others and 2.) the U=U debate makes this more complicated. Additionally, I'm not quite sure if this example should be on the list at all, since it's unclear to me if being a consensual crime would require consenting to the act resulting in a crime (sexual activity) or the crime itself (transmission). Someone with more legal knowledge would need to look into it. (P.S. I'm still figuring out the watchlist, ping if you want my attention.) Duckduckgoop ( talk) 04:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've put blasphemy back in. This is a free speech related offence. The fact that someone chooses to be offended by it, should not be the responsibility of the blasphemer. In a slander it is the person slandered that has the right of action. Since blasphemy is a slander against God, then only God should have the right to bring legal action, and not his self-appointed defenders. Eclecticology, Monday, April 29, 2002
Alex, your test determines whether or not the act is a crime, not whether it is victimless. To test the latter, you simply ask everyone who complains, "Are you God"? If they cannot prove that they are, then they have no standing to complain. --LDC
Hrmmm... Maybe I'm just weird, but don't have to actually believe in a given religion to blaspheme it? Otherwise it's just plain disrespect, which is another matter entirely. I could say "may God rot in Hell"; if I were Christian, this would be blasphemy; if I were an atheist, this would simply be an ironic and disrespectful description of attitude towards the Judeo-Christian god. One can also slander, libel, or defame the followers of a religion or cult, in which case injury does occur, and is prosecutable. But simply performing an act of blasphemy would be an internal matter for the religion in question, would it not? pgdudda
I'm not totally sure about it, but I think that in some countries it is a crime to offend the state itself, or the flag, the himn (not to stand up while it sounds), or the king, the president, etc. Shouldn't they be considered Consensual crime, just the same as blasphemy? -- Pinzo 09:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm removing mention of IP law from here. I happen to be a non-believer in those laws as well, but they are an entirely separate category since there is a clearly identifiable plaintiff in those cases (i.e., the author or inventor). Whether or not such a plaintiff has the right to complain about the use of his work is another matter, but it's not the same as the case of a crime in which the only plaintiff is the state. -- Lee Daniel Crocker
I didn't remove seatbelt laws, and they clearly do belong here. One can make thin arguments for "harm" to third parties caused by all of these things--that doesn't change their essential nature as consensual activities. Yes, in a society with public health spending, risky behaviors can harm others--but one could argue that that's a good reason not to have public spending on health care just as well as a reason to criminalize risky behavior. -- Lee Daniel Crocker
If no copyright owner can be identified, as in the case of a work of corporate authorship after several mergers and bankruptcies, then who is the victim of criminal copyright infringement? And if the author has been dead for 60 years, who is the victim? -- Damian Yerrick 03:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See also orphan works. -- Damian Yerrick 16:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As far as gambling and drugs concerned, one of the major arguments for laws prohibiting or regulating them is that indulging in them can harm others (for instance, a gambler losing all their money and thus lacking the ability to purchase essential items for their family), and the easiest and most humane way to protect people from this harm is to restrict access to the activity that can cause this consequential harm. -- Robert Merkel
I think the article should make clear that there are two entirely different ways to justify consensual crime laws:
Virtually all consensual crime laws are justified in both ways. Opponents of consensual crime laws discard the first type of justification as irrelevant and argue against the second justification by either
...and also that laws against such things often cause more harm than the things themselves. --LDC
"Denying" sounds too negative. I'd say "showing evidence against the harmful effects." -- Damian Yerrick
I removed:
..and will replace it with "statutory rape", which is what I think you have in mind. First, "pedophilia" is a psychological condition, not an act. It is not, in itself, a crime to be attracted to children--just to act on that attraction by actually molesting one. Second, the "pedo-" prefix assumes that the victim, even though giving apparent consent, is truly a "child", and therefore incapable of informed consent. "Statutory rape" is a better example here, because even the word itself makes clear that the reason it's considered rape is that the law says so. It is often prosecuted for relations among teenagers who are quite obviously not "children" in any meaningful sense, and who are quite worldly and experienced enough that their consent is fully informed and real, yet it is a crime anyway.
I've removed statutory rape as it is not fit for inclusion in the article. The article states in the introduction that the activities take place between consenting adults. This is, by definition, untrue for the case of statutory rape. -- Dante Alighieri 10:48 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It's important to note that there's a difference between "legal consent", and "consent" in a non-legal sense (ie, agreement). The problem with saying that statutory rape isn't a consensual crime is that the same argument could be made for cases involving adults - most notably, sadomasochism. In the UK at least, you cannot consent to assault, which is why it is illegal - but by the above logic, this is not a consensual crime! However, at the same time it should surely be noted that people do consent, in a non-legal sense, and that many people consider it to be a consensual crime. Mdwh 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
"Human reproduction outside ordinary methods, such as chemical or genetic interventions, birth control (illegal in many places), human cloning."
Cloning creates a human who has not (of course) given his/her consent to being a clone. It could have negative effects on this persons life and he/she could be considered a victim. I am not sure what is the meaning of "chemical or genetic interventions" and maybe it should be clarified.
"The black market, or trade in general in such things as unapproved products or unlicensed services (to willing and fully informed buyers)."
The term black market may involve trading with stolen goods or dangerous materials that the person buying them might not be able to handle properly. This is a risk for other people.
"Simple ownership of certain inanimate objects, such as guns, or substances such as plutonium or nerve gas."
The owner may not again be able to handle these objects properly. - XeoX
Many people would disagree that this is a "victimless crime". There are enough examples already without heading into murky territory.
Do we know enough about consensual kidnap to put that in the list, or is it already covered under other sections? 21:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Should this article be merged with the article on victimless crime? -- Serge 02:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Why bother with a vote if no one is objecting? I suggest that if no one objects, with good reason, by, say the end of November 2005, just do it. -- Serge 05:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have separated the two pages and now leave it to others to build on consensual crime and rewrite victimless crime so that it is not NPOV. David91 16:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following material:
As far as I know, there are no such crimes as sleep sex and necrophilia. Hence, the inserted passage starts off with a false step. If the sleeping partner is alive and there was no prior consent, e.g. by virtue of a subsisting sexual relationship, this would be rape or an indecent assault and so covered under the ordinary offences. I suppose there are offences involving the desecration of the dead in various jurisdictions, but since the "victim" is dead before, during and after the event, consent cannot be an issue. Thus, there are no sticky issues of any sort here. Unless you know better that is. As an aside, the links to assisted suicide and euthanasia both direct to euthansia, and euthanasia itself is not, so far as I know, an identified offence whereas complicity in suicide is, but... David91 17:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not the offender is the beneficiary is irrelevant because no-one can give a consent that would prevent this from being a crime. The crime is committed when penetration occurs with the relevant knowledge of death. Anyway, I fear that this discussion is original research. I do not think that any of the standard textbooks on criminal law would explore this detail. That said, it is quite interesting to think about the technicalities of it. Law can be fun. David91 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding David91's changes, I think the disagreement is that you are looking at strictly legal terms, whilst I am not. I said "i.e., Assisted Suicide", you moved this to later on to say it is only called that in certain countries. However, even in countries where this is considered murder, it is still known as "assisted suicide". This is not the legal crime, but the concept, and I feel that the article assisted suicide is far more specific and relevant that that of murder (which mostly covers it as a non-consensual crime).
Consider the difference between these two examples:
In the first case, we start off with the legal criminal definition, in the second, we start off with a non-legal description (which applies whether it is legal or not), and then specify that it could be considered illegal.
I believe that the first case carries the implication that these things are immoral (referring to S&M as "assault", referring to assisted suicide as "murder"). Also, terms like assisted suicide and sadism and masochim are used in all countries, and are nothing to do with the legal situation. Since we go with the second case for the other examples, I don't see why assisted suicide should be different. At the least, even if we start off with "Murder", I'd like to revert my "i.e. assisted suicide" nearer the top, since that is what we are talking about. Mdwh 23:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Incest between 2 consenting adults in various countries is a crime. Refer to the Incest page for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.222.12.252 ( talk) 03:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The last section of the 'Examples' section is written in a discussionary rather than factual way, asking if the reader agrees. It should be written in a more objective, citation-driven style Fones4jenke ( talk) 21:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Encyclopedic* Fones4jenke ( talk) 21:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I've significantly modified this section under examples. Regarding the edits I made, treatment options for HIV have improved enough that calling it a terminal disease equivalent to homicide doesn't feel right. I also removed the part about how partners "should" expect a warning for two reasons: 1.) it felt inappropriate to speak on behalf of others and 2.) the U=U debate makes this more complicated. Additionally, I'm not quite sure if this example should be on the list at all, since it's unclear to me if being a consensual crime would require consenting to the act resulting in a crime (sexual activity) or the crime itself (transmission). Someone with more legal knowledge would need to look into it. (P.S. I'm still figuring out the watchlist, ping if you want my attention.) Duckduckgoop ( talk) 04:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)