Talk:Consensual crime

I've put blasphemy back in. This is a free speech related offence. The fact that someone chooses to be offended by it, should not be the responsibility of the blasphemer. In a slander it is the person slandered that has the right of action. Since blasphemy is a slander against God, then only God should have the right to bring legal action, and not his self-appointed defenders. Eclecticology, Monday, April 29, 2002

In my system, but I believe that the same should happen in other latin systems too, there is a victim for this crime, that is against the respect of the religious sentiment, a human value and a moral patrimony. It has its victims in the persons that are offended, morally injured by such a behaviour.

Better if we try to define what we do intend for "blasphemy", before getting into an equivocal talk: it is for me (and for my vocabulary too) an unrespectful expression or action, most typically in oral form, that brings insult to a god, a saint, a religious entity or symbol in general.

This of course has nothing to do with the right of free speech. No one (in theory, perhaps) would ever prosecute me if I publicly discuss a religion, its dogmas, its members, its rules of conduct, whatever I like, with the sole limit that this has to be a discussion, therefore it cannot contain anything that could offend anyone (which is already a general rule). Good manners are not required (even if always welcome), only the fact that we respect the fact that other people believe in what we are discussing about. My freedom of speech would end where the freedom of cult of other people begins. They can profess and even preach, proclaim, predicate their religion as long as they don't offend me. And I can discuss their religion and whatsoever as long as I respect their beliefs and don't offend them. This is freedom of speech, on both sides, as long as no one has an intention of insulting anyone or anything else.

The crime is not against God, for strange it might seem. We don't have virtual personalities other than the personality of the State that can be passive subjects of a crime, and we cannot consider God as a person or a personality. If you offend me because of my nationality, it won't be the Italian Republic to have a right of action against you, it would be my only simple person, the really offended subject (unless you were representing your State or another political or collective entity). Yet, the State has a personality that God has not. So, God is merely regarded as the object of religion of the citizens (of some of them) and not directly considered because by paradox He has no... legal relevance in Himself, He cannot be party in any procedure. This doesn't automatically mean that everyone is free to curse just because there is no available evident (legal) counter-party. And since the state in this case can be interested only by a very weak hypothesis of generical injury to the public order, we are not seriously talking about the State as offended personality, even if a rough element of this position could also be true.

The point is: the faithful is the ordinary victim of this crime/violation. The faithful in this case is not protected as a "defender" of God, because the eventual subsequent action is not a subrogation, nor a constitution of civil (?) party (I obviously refer to my system, I hope terms are comprehensible and that you can find corresponding elements in your system): the faithful is protected because of his essential right to live his religion in peace and without external troubles.

I have to know, because it it can be ordinarily foreseen, that if I curse against a certain God in front of a faithful, he will be offended by my words. So, if I curse, I have to take all my responsibility for the moral damage that I can cause. I cannot just simply offend and then go on completely uncensored. Note that at a general regard, not necessarily the listener has to be a faithful of what I am insulting, to be offended: a sensible person might be offended just the same. Just to make a precise case, if you curse against the jewish religion, which here is professed by a well known but really a very little community, most people, starting by me, would feel offended by a public blasphemy against jewish entities or symbols, even if they are not faithfuls of jewish religion - I would be offended, and I am not even a faithful at all. Could I deserve a protection by the legal system? Or do you expect the system should allow a factual freedom of insult?

We do agree (I'm sure) that everyone has the right to profess the religion he likes (and this is often a constitutional right); I also think that we can agree on the fact that the respect of the religious sentiment is a relevant part of the constitutional right of freedom of religion (and if a right is not protected by the system, there's no need of keeping it into the system).

I can just imagine, from your words, that this is quite far from the common mentality in other systems (we should perhaps find a place in Wikipedia for these crossing points, that are becoming many and interesting), and I was perhaps culturally biased (or still am now) in considering the respect of religious sentiments as a general value (juridical value; of juridical relevance; at a legal regard - I know perfectly well that we still have much to learn in this field!). But I tend to consider that something of these notes will certainly regard the systems in use in other great civilisations too.

So, I believe that a victim, an offended person exists in your system too, therefore blasphemy cannot be listed in the article.

My two eurocents :-) --Gianfranco

For the length of that there were more than two euro cents involved. I will wait a couple of days before I can give it fair and proper consideration. My dictionary does specifically define blasphemy as a slander of God. Is bestemmiare as narrow in its meanings as that? I would like to make sure at least, that we are referring to the same act. Eclecticology

Sorry for length, Wikipedia often makes me exhume ancient arguments that were object of many long, very long academical debates in my youth. :-)

Well, on my side I have for "slander" some meanings that seem to sound as lighter than what bestemmiare describes. Bestémmia completely coincides in Italian with Blasfemìa, the only equivalent I have found for "blasphemy". And I have for bestemmia: oath, curse, swear. Sorry to get into details, but typically a bestemmia is a vulgar expression that unrespectfully puts into relationship God (or another religious figure) with animals or with sexual or otherwise scandalous arguments. So, it is a real offence like what one could say, in vulgar terms, about his worst enemy and... his mother. I hope the note wasn't too direct. --Gianfranco

The question of whether blasphemy is victimless or not can be settled rather easily: if you say "God sucks" in front of an atheist policeman with nobody else present, will he be required to arrest you? AxelBoldt

Alex, your test determines whether or not the act is a crime, not whether it is victimless. To test the latter, you simply ask everyone who complains, "Are you God"? If they cannot prove that they are, then they have no standing to complain. --LDC

(evidently) I am not God, and this I can prove, but I could however be offended by a sentence like the one above reported. I could suffer for it, I could be disturbed by the needless expression. Legally speaking, I could receive a moral damage as the consequence of that action.

Let's suppose I have a religious sentiment: I can consider it as an insult to my freedom of cult, directly, and I couldn't stand it.

Let's suppose I don't have a religious sentiment: I can consider it as an insult to someone else's freedom of cult and I can find that this would be not tolerable, and without even being biased by my own religious beliefs, because it is generally known that no real faithful would be joyful in hearing his most important beliefs being derided.

Am I really too sensible, do I suffer from a superiority complex, or in the place you live in I could insult everyone without ever suffering any consequence? I believe you have in your system both a crime for the simple insult and a law for protecting the freedom of cult. If your system has these two elements, your system should respect the religious sentiment. This doesn't force you to have one, if you don't want to have one. This only forces you to respect the beliefs of other people. The offended persons of a not victimless crime.

If I don't believe in your God, I don't need to laugh at what you deeply consider so serious for your soul. I could discuss, respectfully, not sneer at your beliefs. The contrary being a conduct that causes damage (moral damage), therefore creating a passive subject of the crime.

Just a detail about the victims and a POV about your test: I'd preferably simply ask everyone who complains: "Are you a faithful"? But whatever it might be, I wouldn't wait for the answer, because it makes no difference to me. --Gianfranco

Hrmmm... Maybe I'm just weird, but don't have to actually believe in a given religion to blaspheme it? Otherwise it's just plain disrespect, which is another matter entirely. I could say "may God rot in Hell"; if I were Christian, this would be blasphemy; if I were an atheist, this would simply be an ironic and disrespectful description of attitude towards the Judeo-Christian god. One can also slander, libel, or defame the followers of a religion or cult, in which case injury does occur, and is prosecutable. But simply performing an act of blasphemy would be an internal matter for the religion in question, would it not? pgdudda

In a free country like the US, sure. But try calling the prophet Muhammed a fat whoremonger in an Islamic country and see if the local government thinks you're just being "disrespectful". Blasphemy against a state-sanctioned religion has been and is today a punishable crime regardless of what the speaker personally believes. And that's what this article is about--criminal offenses. --LDC

Depends on the country; while their legal term for it may be "blasphemy", it actually falls under the heading of "insulting (insert religion here)" - which is still, IMO, a "victimless" crime. Of course, the subject of blasphemy falls under the general heading of "freedom of (and from) religion" principle outlined, for example, in the U.S. Constitution. Islamic states do not have the same sorts of legal protections, although the freedom of religious practice varies from country to country. Just my extra 2 US cents' worth of thought. pgdudda

I'm removing mention of IP law from here. I happen to be a non-believer in those laws as well, but they are an entirely separate category since there is a clearly identifiable plaintiff in those cases (i.e., the author or inventor). Whether or not such a plaintiff has the right to complain about the use of his work is another matter, but it's not the same as the case of a crime in which the only plaintiff is the state. -- Lee Daniel Crocker

Very well, I can see that point.
There's still no explanation, however, for removing seatbelt laws! Eclecticology

Seatbelt law violations are not victimless, in some senses (though perhaps not in the sense of this article, I'm not sure). In a society with either health insurance or a public health scheme it costs the funders of the health scheme a great deal of money (because the injuries to unbelted passengers are more substantial, on average, and require more expensive medical treatment, and they are also more likely to die). Secondly, it means that other road users have a greater risk of causing death and injury from a driving mistake. --Robert Merkel

I didn't remove seatbelt laws, and they clearly do belong here. One can make thin arguments for "harm" to third parties caused by all of these things--that doesn't change their essential nature as consensual activities. Yes, in a society with public health spending, risky behaviors can harm others--but one could argue that that's a good reason not to have public spending on health care just as well as a reason to criminalize risky behavior. -- Lee Daniel Crocker

As far as gambling and drugs concerned, one of the major arguments for laws prohibiting or regulating them is that indulging in them can harm others (for instance, a gambler losing all their money and thus lacking the ability to purchase essential items for their family), and the easiest and most humane way to protect people from this harm is to restrict access to the activity that can cause this consequential harm. --Robert Merkel

I think the article should make clear that there are two entirely different ways to justify consensual crime laws:

the proscribed activities are immoral
the proscribed activities lead to harmful effects to third parties in the future.

Virtually all consensual crime laws are justified in both ways. Opponents of consensual crime laws discard the first type of justification as irrelevant and argue against the second justification by either

denying the harmful effects, or
arguing for proscribing activities "closer to the harm".

AxelBoldt

...and also that laws against such things often cause more harm than the things themselves. --LDC

"Denying" sounds too negative. I'd say "showing evidence against the harmful effects." --Damian Yerrick

I removed:

Pedophilia, where the minor participant is a willing actor.

..and will replace it with "statutory rape", which is what I think you have in mind. First, "pedophilia" is a psychological condition, not an act. It is not, in itself, a crime to be attracted to children--just to act on that attraction by actually molesting one. Second, the "pedo-" prefix assumes that the victim, even though giving apparent consent, is truly a "child", and therefore incapable of informed consent. "Statutory rape" is a better example here, because even the word itself makes clear that the reason it's considered rape is that the law says so. It is often prosecuted for relations among teenagers who are quite obviously not "children" in any meaningful sense, and who are quite worldly and experienced enough that their consent is fully informed and real, yet it is a crime anyway.

...oops, you beat me to it. Yes, I think that's much better.

I've removed statutory rape as it is not fit for inclusion in the article. The article states in the introduction that the activities take place between consenting adults. This is, by definition, untrue for the case of statutory rape. --Dante Alighieri 10:48 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Only if you define "adult" as "over the legal age of consent in the country you happen to be living in". However, in this context, "adult" means "capable of giving consent". For example, if they set the age of consent for anal sex to 70, then anal sex under the age of 70 would be statutory rape and a consensual crime. It's certainly controversial whether statutory rape should be regarded as a consensual crime, and we need to take care over a NPOV, but it is on topic and can be discussed in the article. Martin 16:34 10 Jul 2003 (UTC) (edited - I wasn't clear)

I didn't say that it wasn't on topic or shouldn't be discussed, just that, given the definition given for consenual crimes, it was ineligible on its face from inclusion. I still feel that way. You are, of course, welcome to tidy up the definition of consenual crime to make stautory rape fit the definition. --Dante Alighieri 19:50 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Human reproduction outside ordinary methods, such as chemical or genetic interventions, birth control (illegal in many places), human cloning."

Cloning creates a human who has not (of course) given his/her consent to being a clone. It could have negative effects on this persons life and he/she could be considered a victim. I am not sure what is the meaning of "chemical or genetic interventions" and maybe it should be clarified.

"The black market, or trade in general in such things as unapproved products or unlicensed services (to willing and fully informed buyers)."

The term black market may involve trading with stolen goods or dangerous materials that the person buying them might not be able to handle properly. This is a risk for other people.

"Simple ownership of certain inanimate objects, such as guns, or substances such as plutonium or nerve gas."

The owner may not again be able to handle these objects properly. -XeoX

There is a big difference between guns and plutonium or nerve gas, and they shouldn't be listed right next to each other. Modern firearms are totally inanimate and incapable of causing harm without some person or other animate entity being involved. But plutonium and nerve gas can cause harm without any one's active involvement. (But I can't think of a good way to split them right at this instant, so I'm not doing anything about it.) -Jay Kominek

Guns can be discharged accidentally, so they are a legitimate example of a dangerous object. As far as I know, there are no laws distinguishing between guns being accidentally discharged by 'animate entities' like people and animals, and otherwise (e.g. in a fire, or due to defects in the weapon). (Actually I'm a bit surprised by your qualifier that only modern firearms are inanimate. Unless you're including the horses in horse-drawn artillery.)

However, firearms and other weapons are also sometimes banned as devices used to commit crimes, which I've added as a separate category. I've substituted fireworks as a better example of objects banned due to the danger of accidents.

--Townmouse 03:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blasphemy to the state

I'm not totally sure about it, but I think that in some countries it is a crime to offend the state itself, or the flag, the himn (not to stand up while it sounds), or the king, the president, etc. Shouldn't they be considered Consensual crime, just the same as blasphemy? --Pinzo 09:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some countries have laws protecting national institutions and culture. I think it would make sense to change the 'religion' section to 'religion and culture', and move 1 or 2 examples accordingly. --Townmouse 03:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)