Replies

...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.

A couple years ago, the state of Texas prosecuted TXU Electric for overcharging its customers. The penalty? A multi-million-dollar fine - payable to the state of Texas.

So let's see... you steal from people, you get caught, you have to repay what you stole to the people you stole it from? Nope. You have to reimburse the government. I count TWO thieves here, one of them with the law on their side.

I generally agree if there's no victim there ought be no crime.

IIRC, it was the medieval Scots who had only four crimes: treason, cowardice, sodomy, and one I can't remember. These are all crimes against the people itself. Everything else was to be settled between the parties involved. ("Blood feuds" and so forth.) The criminal-civil code of ancient Israel likewise proscribed certain behaviors the victim of which was the people itself. (Just food for thought as we ponder good laws vs. bad ones.)

Yes, it's been a most interesting and thought-provoking discussion. Thank you both - and everyone else!