[LearsFool]

With respect to crime, no one need profit from it but the VICTIM of the crime should most surely be made whole by the criminal.

Exactly right. I don't know how we got away from that fundamental premise of justice, nor who first invented the idea that all crimes are against the state, but justice has suffered ever since. (Why on earth should the victim be forced to sue in civil court in order to be made whole?!)

Conversely, if there is no victim to make whole, because there was NO VICTIM of the "crime," then no crime was committed, no matter that someone may have broken a law (that probably should not be on the books, ANYWAY!).

Why am I not surprised to hear you take that position? :-) Ah well, I believe we've both presented our best arguments on the matter and still disagree. Best we can do for now.

[Clinging Bitterly]

...the idea that all crimes are against the state...

We see all the time, particularly with financial and "consumer protection" type laws, cases of fraud against numbers of individuals where the state AG comes along and files charges - and the remedy always seems to be huge fines paid to the state. And you're right. Where is the justice in that?

Regarding victimless crime: Some crimes are always victimless, others sometimes victimless, and I generally agree if there's no victim there ought be no crime. That's not to say the state can never be a victim though.

This has been a great discussion even though it has strayed somewhat from the posted topic. Here the three of us have a more or less common understanding of our society and it's founding principles but in our small disagreements we see how not so clear the boundaries really are. Much more in common though, plenty at which to chisel away down the threads.

See ya.