Yes, victimless crimes should be free from governmental interference. I believe that there are victims in each and every crime that is committed. So long as both parties are willing to enter into the transaction, where is the victim? There are many, many victimless crimes. Helping others through a similar story has helped her cope with moving forward -- it's what she's made a career out of. However, punishing citizens solely for their choice to engage in victimless, immoral acts is a difficult task. Also, I think that too many crimes cause more harm to people when they are prosecuted for them rather than just doing the thing anyway. A couple good reads on the subject: I totally agree with you.
Usually, these laws do not protect a victim from a crime, but a society from a specific behavior which some feel is inappropriate. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The more philosophical answer is that we have to blame British philosopher John Stuart Mill 1806—73 — but only a little bit. That's a good example of a situation in which everyone benefits yet still there are of which we disapprove. You are victims of the laws forcing you to pay for others' in this example, mine care. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart. If I use the gun to rob someone, robbery is a crime with a victim.
There is a victim in every crime -- a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result. She's been able to move forward since that night, but she says the moment will stay with her forever. If the agent's intentions are good, then we may still say that moral goodess has occurred, even though what is visible to us is not always the full picture. Cheating in an exam is actually a crime in some countries I forget which. Her day-to-day consists of working with victims of crimes, making sure they get everything they need.
However, that would not be the case without the black market incentive, and so the crime is victimless, but the law creates victims. It is a similar story in Honduras, which is considered to be the gateway from Columbia to America and Europe in terms of drug smuggling. This shows that laws are predominantly about protecting potential victims as well as potential felons. There have been a few brave people who have stepped forward lately in their desire to remove the crimes from victimless crime, which removes the victims. They become a victim to the drug as their body becomes dependant on the substance.
Enron Scandal, 2008 Tax evasion is not considered to be as big of a crime as accounting fraud because of the publicity that accounting fraud receives in comparison to tax evasion. That, is a victimless crime, though he got more than most murderers. Technically that is true of marriage as well - when John marries the girl you love he imposes a cost on you because your sweetheart is no longer free to marry you. Basically, anything that is illegal but does not harm anyone is a victimless crime. To some people, that's the end of the story -- the person is off the streets and away from the victims. Is there such a thing as a morally good crime? It depends on your perspective, but at an individual 'singular' level, quite possibly. It all comes down to money.
Of course no crime can ever be literally victimless — and this is the problem in discussions. Here we have a crime in which both Frank and Jack have benefitted Frank with free food and Jack with an extra £20. What is evident is that the cocaine trade penetrates all sections of society in Latin America and continues to force impoverished people from their homes in order to grow coca on their land, as well as putting police men and women who stand in the way of powerful drug cartels at risk of losing their lives due to their resistance. Victimless crimes must be truly victimless. I say 'singular crime' because clearly if everyone in the country tried this then many of the nation's vital services would be severely impaired.
Her day-to-day consists of working with victims of crimes, making sure they get everything they need. That's not to say that we should endorse a crime even if it is rational, but it is rational by any standard definition in economics see Gary Becker's Rational Choice Theory for more on this. One where gangs can't sell drugs to make a profit anymore than they can currently sell aspirin to supply finances for their activities. Of course, the somewhat more usable explanation comes from the law school. Other critics complain that there is no such thing as a victimless crime; whenever one of these crimes is committed but goes unpunished, individual mores, societal values, and therule of law are undermined or compromised, rendering society itself the victim.
Some may consider vice to be immoral and some would not. I think the deontologists' position is inadequate, because I don't think there is any instance of wrongdoing that would be wrong at all times. So when you come to think about it there could be victimless crime. In this scandal, many people in upper management made quite a bit of money off the employees of the corporation, leaving them jobless and broke with no retirement. There may not be an accident but everyone that is on the road with that person becomes a victim due to the fact that his or her life could come to an end due to someone wishing to drive intoxicated. Many people feel that the crimes listed above are not actual crimes, but I feel differently. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations.