Victimless “Crimes” : Why Decriminalization is so Important

There is a chance that today, or sometime this week, you have committed a crime. From assisted suicide to cannabis use to illegal gambling, there are thousands of crimes where a victim other than the self cannot be identified. These crimes are victimless, which means they are illegal acts that only involve and affect the person committing the crime. The victim is the self (if there is any victim at all). If you are only affecting yourself, is there any “crime” at all? Which acts should and shouldn’t be crimes? If there is no victim, there should be no crime. Victimless crimes should not be crimes.

There are two types of crimes: those with victims, where one’s actions affect another individual (or individuals), and those without victims, where one’s actions only affect themselves. Take, for example, robbery. The victim is the storeowner, whose finances are being negatively affected by the robber’s actions. An example of a victimless crime is cannabis use. No other person’s psychological mechanisms are being affected by the drug except for the person that willingly decided to intake cannabis. Clearly, robbery should be considered a crime. The rule of law is integral to a civilized nation and outlawing robbery is in the public’s interest. Is outlawing cannabis use in the public’s interest? The answer to that question is irrelevant because individual drug use does not affect the public like robbery does. Cannabis (and other nonviolent crimes) are illegal solely on the bases of morality, false narratives, and misleading, flawed logic.

Those that defend outlawing nonviolent drugs typically provide their evidence in a couple ways. Firstly, many falsely claim these crimes do have victims. For example, in the case of cannabis use, one of the biggest reasons for keeping the drug illegal is that “legalization would lead to an increase in cannabis related car accidents”. This is nothing more than a red herring argument. No one in favor of legalization is claiming that it should be legal to drive under the influence of drugs as well. Consider alcohol. Despite being a drug that only affects the self just like cannabis, it is legal, while cannabis is not. Driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal because there can be a victim other than yourself in a car crash. This logic should also apply to other psychologically influencing drugs, like Cannabis. Use should be legal but getting behind the wheel intoxicated should be illegal. Secondly, many argue cannabis use will lead to stronger drug use. Now, despite there being very little evidence that this is the case, even if it were true, all nonviolent drugs should still be legalized because the only victim is the user. It is their personal choice to decide what to put in their body. If you or anyone else are not being affected by someone else’s personal choices, why is it your duty to determine what is right and wrong for that person? This ties in to the third argument, that cannabis use “is immoral” or “harmful to the user”. Cannabis use may be against your own morals, and it is completely fine to accept and champion that idea… so long you are only considering your own life. Morals are unique to the individual and should only influence the individual. Just because a politician thinks cannabis use is immoral does not mean that all of his constituents agree. Is eating meat on Fridays during Lent “immoral”? Catholics would say yes, and non-Catholics would disagree. Just like cannabis use, this is an instance of a personal choice that only affects yourself. If drug use is “immoral” in your eyes, do not do recreational drugs, mind your own business, and move on.

The moral argument extends to all victimless crimes. Gambling and prostitution are illegal in many parts of the United States because these acts are immoral to many. The people that want these acts outlawed almost always would never partake in the acts themselves were they to be legalized. In other words, those that want victimless crimes to stay crimes are broadcasting their moral compass onto others. They want society to follow the set of rules that they follow. This is not how society is meant to function. We are communal, but we are also free thinkers with free will.

Some in favor of victimless crimes continuing to be crimes may argue that the reason for illegality is not their moral compass, but instead an objective view on the pros and cons of an action. Many argue gambling should be illegal because it can lead to addiction. Some even say that legalizing gambling sets a bad standard for the future generation and will lead to more gambling addictions. It is easy to agree that any addiction is bad. These statements may contain some merit, but neither justify illegality. As a society, we can aid others in their personal decisions without including the rule of law. We can accept that gambling can be addicting but with personal responsibility there is little harm. The government does not have an obligation nor right to legislate personal responsibility. Eating processed food frequently is bad for your health, yet most would agree that in moderation eating these foods are okay. This does not mean that the government should outlaw very frequent consumption of processed food. It is the individual’s choice to follow what is right and wrong (based on their own values). Only when the individual is affecting someone else’s life because of their decisions can we consider legal action.

The last strong point against victimless crimes puts aside the moral argument and considers the current reality of victimless crimes and their punishments. Besides the self, the only other party typically involved in a victimless crime is the police. Combined with unreasonably harsh prison sentencing and an often corrupt and unjust system, victimless crimes become a much more serious offense that can completely change the trajectory of your life. The sad truth is that the more interactions marginalized communities have with the police, the worse the outcomes for these communities typically are. Many cases of police brutality seen on the news stem from a police officer stopping a pedestrian to investigate a potential victimless crime. One-fifth of incarcerated individuals in the United States are serving time solely for a drug charge. This has led to the US having one of the highest incarceration rates in the world (one-fourth of the world’s prison population). Logically, defenders of victimless crimes would not see many problems with these statistics. People that are using drugs are being punished for it and are being taken off the streets. The only problem: this mass incarceration has not led to lower drug use in the United States. In fact, opioid use hit all time highs just this past decade. Cannabis use is not decreasing in illegal states. A non-drug example of the punishment to victimless crimes clearly being ineffective is assisted suicide. While some states — and many countries — have outlawed the act, assisted suicide rates are increasing almost everywhere worldwide. The punishment to victimless crime seems to fail in deterring the individual from committing the crime. In the United States, especially when considering nonviolent drugs, these laws incarcerate citizens and puts them in a much worse situation in prison. The goal of punishment is to deter from continuing the same faulty behavior. Criminalizing victimless acts does not and has not met this goal, but instead has kept those that need rehabilitative help in a vicious prison cycle for no good reason.

All the listed reasons against victimless crimes being considered crimes have merit and argue from many different perspectives. Simply put, if the crime is against yourself, there is no crime at all. The psychological examination of the argument over victimless crimes has proven to be on the side of allowing these victimless crimes to be decriminalized. Beyond that, the social implications of victimless crimes have shown to be detrimental and not beneficial to society at all. There is currently a shift away from criminalizing victimless acts in the United States over the past two decades. Gay marriage has been legalized, drugs are becoming decriminalized, and even gambling is making a comeback as it has many restrictions across the country. The people of this country have decided that they are for eliminating victimless crimes, because it is for their own benefit. It will not be surprising when victimless crimes become less and less relevant as time goes on, in addition to our views on “crime” being redefined.