Victimless crime bill 2012

[Free libertarian]

No victim, no crime.  Seems like a good idea to you too?  Why not come to a hearing in Concord in February to support this great idea?  Now hold your horses there neigh sayers...this is using government against itself and has the official blessing of an elected Ambassador!   

Go here to read the bill and get details on the hearing date and time.

http://nhjury.com/hb1531-2012-relative-to-prosecution-for-victimless-crimes/

[Tom Sawyer]

Well if it's blessed by the Ambassador... 

It will be interesting to see the hue and cry over this bill... "We can't have people doing what they please!"

[Jim Johnson]

Now you need to make 'proof of a victim' mandatory before anyone can be found guilty of a crime.

[lildog]

Interesting bill but based on how some of my more liberal friends argue I can see how it could be abused or by passed with liberal logic.

For example, when they supported banning smoking they argued that 2nd hand smoke made them a victim.

They argue that if you don't wear a seatbelt they are victimized because their insurance rates go up, ditto for the reasoning for them wanting to force helmets on anyone riding a motorcycle.

And that's not even touching the spinning they can put on "emotional" victimization which this bill allows for.  For instance, let's assume you like to sit home after a long day at work in your own home stripped naked and drinking beer.  If someone were to walk by and happen to catch site of you through a small separation in your curtains they could claim they were emotionally scared (and any who's seen the groups at liberty events in NH can attest that seeing some of us here naked would be very emotionally scaring).
Heck, finding a hair in a lunch could be considered emotionally damaging to some.
And if you really want to go for some extreme liberal logic, if you eat unhealthy food like McD's and gain weight, it's the fast food place at fault because they caused you harm selling you unhealthy food in the first place.

All it would take is a few judges to agree to their twisted logic and the intent of this bill would go right out the window.

[Free libertarian]

lildog, I'm guessing here but I believe most of the cases in court these days don't involve an actual aggrieved person bringing charges. Most cases involve the State bringing the charges.  Maybe the bill should read there needs to be an actual person that is the complainant that wants to litigate, since the State is a nonperson.

Anyhow I didn't write the bill and to echo Tom Sawyer, this bill will probably bring out all the power monger rhetoric. Although any time somebody wants to reduce the bad guys power over us I want to support them, so I'll probably attend this hearing. 

[lildog]

lildog, I'm guessing here but I believe most of the cases in court these days don't involve an actual aggrieved person bringing charges. Most cases involve the State bringing the charges.  Maybe the bill should read there needs to be an actual person that is the complainant that wants to litigate, since the State is a nonperson.

Since corporations are granted rights as "persons" then it isn't too much of a logic leap to believe they would allow "the state" to represent an undefined "person" in cases like these.

Anyhow I didn't write the bill and to echo Tom Sawyer, this bill will probably bring out all the power monger rhetoric. Although any time somebody wants to reduce the bad guys power over us I want to support them, so I'll probably attend this hearing.

I'm a firm believer in the old claim that the best way to build up a strong argument is to first attempt to argue it from the other side.  Since I most often disagree with liberals I always attempt to look first how they would argue any point as in my case here.