BOL Round Table

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

bamazsmith said...

"Victimless Crime" as a legal category by which we determine whether the use of the police power is legitimate or not doesn't exist.

As I have stated earlier, we have tort law to compensate the victims of wrongs. This is why I can't sue you for texting in the car next to me because there is no harm to me (i.e., there is no "victim" and, thus, no tort.)

The realm of Criminal Law needs no "victim" (more precisely, it needs no "physical harm to another person") because the harm is to the state / society / the sovereign / etc... Crimes are, legally speaking, not committed against real persons but against society, which is why society reserves the right to condemn criminals, mark them as "felon," incarcerate them, etc. . . . This is also why criminal law does not USUALLY involve recompense to the "personal victim" of the crime.

I know that this may be a bit "heady" for you, but trust me when I say that these are the theoretical underpinnings of how our legal justice system does (and always has) operated. Like it or not, it's foundational and not readily apparent.

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

BamaNtn92 said...

BUT it's perfectly safe for women to put on makeup or lipstick or even brush their teeth while driving.

The way to a woman's mouth is through her phone.