Are Vices Crimes?

[sweetnpetite]

Vices Are Not Crimes
A Vindication of Moral Liberty
by Lysander Spooner
1875

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.

Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.

Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

In vices, the very essence of crime - that is, the design to injure the person or property of another - is wanting.

It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.

Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.

For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth.

entire document: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/vices.htm

 

[Guest]

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.

Huh? I've never hurt him or his property, honest. Not even when I almost bit him once.

He spanks me, and I'm his property, does that count?

I'm sorry, I'm being flip, but that sentence struck me as ridiculous.

 

[Dar~]

I would have to say it depends on your vice. My vice is Ice cream. If your vice is sex with a three year old I'd say its wrong.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Consider:

• smoking laws
• corportat policy on peronal lives (ie smoking)- and does this apply?
• prostitution
• gambling
• etc...

 

[Liar]

Depends.


Which is pretty much what the stawberrynibbler just said.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I would have to say it depends on your vice. My vice is Ice cream. If your vice is sex with a three year old I'd say its wrong.

That would fall under definition of crime and not vice (as explained in the document)

*the question isn't weather or not it's wrong but weather or not it is a crime.*

harming another would be a crime. Making yourself puke up your food in order to maintain an impossible weight would be wrong (but not a crime).

 

[Dar~]

I think gambling should be illegal. It is basically stealing. I also think that smoking laws protect the rights of people who don't smoke. I don't want my kids affected by someone else's smoke.
I don' thtink prostitution should be illegal, simply b/c its a personal choice that only hurts those directly involved.

 

[Liar]

Consider:

• smoking laws
• corportat policy on peronal lives (ie smoking)- and does this apply?
• prostitution
• gambling
• etc...

smoking laws - Afaik no laws against you smoking. only against you smoking in a place or in a manner where it can harm others (passive smoking)
corportat policy on peronal lives (ie smoking)- No. because by harming yourself you are harming people who depend on you
prostitution - Not sure about that one. I think it has to do with the seediness of the business ad the desperation and criminality that often surrounds it. Buton the other hand, there is no saying that what society deems as "immoral" although it hurts nobody can't be outlawed.
gambling - See above
etc... - that's a tricky one.

Bottom line is, any vice can be handled irresponsibley to the degree where it affects and harms others. Then it becomes a crime.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Originally Posted by sweetnpetite

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.

Huh? I've never hurt him or his property, honest. Not even when I almost bit him once.

He spanks me, and I'm his property, does that count?

I'm sorry, I'm being flip, but that sentence struck me as ridiculous.

Reread it, I think you'll understand. Harm is not the same as hurt. When you leave an bad relationship, it hurts. When you stay it is harm. When your enter voluntarily into being spanked, it might hurt- but it isn't harm (unless it causes lasting damage, in which case it is harm)

Anyway, he is arguing that a man (person I suppose) should have the right to his vices (actions that hurt nobody but himself, ie 'victimless crime') and that the government should not make laws against such things to 'protect him from himself' ie- for example, drinking leads to liver damage thererfor we will make it illegal to drink or to purchase or sell alchoholic beverages.

And yes, I think it counts. You are definatley a vice

 

[sweetnpetite]

etc... [/B]- that's a tricky one.

[/QUOTE

 

[sweetnpetite]

"A government that shall punish all vices impartially is so obviously an impossibility, that nobody was ever found, or ever will be found, foolish enough to propose it. The most that any one proposes is, that government shall punish some one, or at most a few, of what he esteems the grossest of them. But this discrimination is an utterly absurd, illogical, and tyrannical one. What right has any body of men to say, "The vices of other men we will punish; but our own vices nobody shall punish? We will restrain other men from seeking their own happiness, according to their own notions of it; but nobody shall restrain us from seeking our own happiness, according to our own notions of it? We will restrain other men from acquiring any experimental knowledge of what is conducive or necessary to their own happiness; but nobody shall restrain us from acquiring an experimental knowledge of what is conducive or necessary to our own happiness?"

Nobody but knaves or blockheads ever thinks of making such absurd assumptions as these. And yet, evidently, it is only upon such assumptions that anybody can claim the right to punish the vices of others, and at the same time claim exemption from punishment for his own. "

.........

"It will do for a pope or a king - who claims to have received direct authority from Heaven, to rule over his fellowmen - to claim the right, as the viceregent of God, to punish men for their vices; but it is a sheer and utter absurdity for any government, claiming to derive its power wholly from the grant of the governed, to claim any such power; because everybody knows that the governed never would grant it. For them to grant it would be an absurdity, because it would be granting away their own right to seek their own happiness; since to grant away their right to judge of what will be for their happiness, is to grant away all their right to pursue their own happiness. "

 

[sweetnpetite]

the question is not "what things are vices and what things are Crimes? The question is "Does the government have a right to legeslate against Vices? Do you agree or disagree with the points made by the author? Has he made his point? And if not, were has he failed to make the point-- what is his error?"

Er... I hope that clarifies the intent of the post.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Huh? I've never hurt him or his property, honest. Not even when I almost bit him once.

He spanks me, and I'm his property, does that count?

I'm sorry, I'm being flip, but that sentence struck me as ridiculous.

Later he goes on to say, "Every man must necessarily judge and determine for himself as to what is conducive and necessary to, and what is destructive of, his own well-being..."

 

[cantdog]

Victimless crimes are on shaky ground, I think. "If my neighbor worships one God, none, or twenty, it hurts me not at all." If he picks my pocket, now he's done something worth getting huffy about.

 

[sweetnpetite]

And I would add that if I want to drink beer all day, that is my right, but when I punch somebody in a drunken fit- the assault and not the drinking is the crime.

 

[sweetnpetite]

And I would add that if I want to drink beer all day, that is my right, but when I punch somebody in a drunken fit- the assault and not the drinking is the crime.

**edited to add that although I shouldn't drink, doens't mean that no one should be allowed to drink.

"But it will be said that some men are made, by their vices, dangerous to other persons; that a drunkard, for example, is sometimes quarrelsome and dangerous toward his family or others. And it will be asked, "has the law nothing to do in such a case?"

The answer is, that if, either from drunkenness or any other cause, a man be really dangerous, either to his family or to other persons, not only himself may be rightfully restrained, so far as the safety of other persons requires, but all other persons - who know or have reasonable grounds to believe him dangerous - may also be restrained from selling or giving to him anything that they have reason to suppose will make him dangerous.

But because one man becomes quarrelsome and dangerous after drinking spirituous liquors, and because it is a crime to give or sell liquor to such a man, it does not follow at all that it is a crime to sell liquors to the hundreds and thousands of other persons, who are not made quarrelsome or dangerous by drinking them. Before a man can be convicted of crime in selling liquor to a dangerous man, it must be shown that the particular man, to whom the liquor was sold, was dangerous; and also that the seller knew, or had reasonable grounds to suppose, that the man would be made dangerous by drinking it.

The presumption of law is, in all cases, that the sale is innocent; and the burden of proving it criminal, in any particular case, rests upon the government. And that particular case must be proved criminal, independently of all others.

Subject to these principles, there is no difficulty convicting and punishing men for the sale or gift of any article to a man, who is made dangerous to others by the use of it. "

This makes me think about the restrictions being placed on the purchase of over the counter cold medicines due to there use in manufacturing illegal drugs. And I agree with the author.

 

[R. Richard]

One problem that has not really been discussed here is long term affects of vices.

If I drink a beer it might be argued that it is a vice (I do and I don't think it is a vice). However if I drink beer each day to the point that I get drunk and annoy people that may or may not be a crime. However, when my body deteriorates after years of such abuse, then society has to pay for my health care since I spent all my money on beer.

Similarly, if I smoke dope all day instead of working, that might be termed a vice. However, I am either going to have to live on charity or turn to crime to get money to survive. Thus my vice may not be a crime, but it leads to crime.

It is not a simple matter.

 

[cantdog]

The fewer laws of any kind whatsoever, the better, for me. I don't feel that some sort of exception needs to be made, simply to forbear making another damned law.

 

[Weird Harold]

...then society has to pay for my health care since I spent all my money on beer.

Why does society have to pay?

If you wish to quietly drink yourself to death, why is it society's responsibility to save you from yourself?

I agree with almost everything in this ancient treatise on the distinction between vice and crime, and where I disagree it's on very minor points.

Far too many people -- especially legislators -- have forgotten the distinction between Vice and Crime and made the perceived problems they try to correct worse in the process; not to mention infringed on the rights of the innocent and responsible to "protect" society from imagined crimes.

Making a vice into a crime because of a "six degrees of separation" link to a potential real crime is just rationalizing a desire to limit somone else's vice.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The article is littered with weak reasoning and premises that aren't necessarily agreeable... I have to find myself in disagreement with most of it.

 

[Belegon]

The article is littered with weak reasoning and premises that aren't necessarily agreeable... I have to find myself in disagreement with most of it.

Luckily, Joe...

"A man is under no obligation to take anybody's word, or yield to anybody's authority, on a matter so vital to himself, and in regard to which no one else has, or can have, any such interest as he. He cannot, if he would, safely rely upon the opinions of other men, because he finds that the opinions of other men do not agree."

couldn't resist the easy lay-up....

there is some things I agree with here and some I don't. But the article has merit as at least a discussion starter.

 

[Pure]

Hi Sweet,
This is essentially the old question, should the government enforce morality

The pure theoretic liberal (a la Mill) says 'no'. Libertarians, so called tend now to think this, as well as the 'left liberals'.

Conservatives come in all stripes, but the 'social conservative' or 'moral conservative' as perhaps Bush would be, if he had a mind, *does* believe in legislating morality, at least to some extent.

It's not easy to argue one way or the other, except the trite old thing you mentioned 'no one is harmed.' Social conservatives just don't agree with the principle. OR, if they do, they believe in 'moral harms'.

 

[Weird Harold]

Hi Sweet,
This is essentially the old question, should the government enforce morality

Reasonable, since the essay quoted at the beginning is:

Vices Are Not Crimes
A Vindication of Moral Liberty
by Lysander Spooner
1875

In other words, and old answer to an old question, but nonetheless worth considering again.

 

[Pure]

Well, Harold, it wasn't clear at first, given the title, and that the definition was 'harms no one' but (possibly) the person.

Drunkenness fits, and one may make the easy distinction between private and public drunkenness (or public brawling).

But Sweet's own examples include gambling and prostitution, where others certainly are *necessarily* involved. I'd not so much call these private vices as (allegedly) immoral or quasi-antisocial acts.

It's unclear where Spooner would put these. Notice, as I said, that some social conservatives do not agree prostitution is without harm, though it's consensual. Indeed some feminists agree. Some say the prostitute degrades herself (or himself).

There's another category of acts that deserve mention, in terms of legislation. How about false promise to marry? Adultery? Suborning someone to adultery? These used to be on the books, notably in ole' Mass., but most people nowadays agree they shouldn't be prosecuted.

It's unclear what Spooner thinks of someone who goes around seducing virgins under promise of marriage, or fucking the wife of everyone he knows. Or, for that matter, the status of the wife's adultery.
----

Incidentally, Spooner's definition is idiosyncratic, for it may not refer to gambling, prostitution or adultery. Merriam Webster Unabridged give this for 'vice', and it includes all of Sweet's and my examples:

1 a : moral depravity or corruption : evil conduct or habits : indulgence of degrading appetites : WICKEDNESS <the true lover of the human race is surely he who can put up with it in all its forms, in vice as well as in virtue -- John Galsworthy>

b : a wrong, degrading, or immoral habit or practice : evil behavior of a particular or accustomed kind <tainted with the vice of homosexuality -- R.A.Hall b. 1911>

 

[msboy8]

Consider:

• smoking laws
• corportat policy on peronal lives (ie smoking)- and does this apply?
• prostitution
• gambling
• etc...

Ever hear of second hand smoke?