no victim no crime

Total number of votes: 16

56.3% True

43.8% False

Cap 30, 00 / Dec 31, 16 20:24 UTC

simple law  

No victim no crime. That's it.

As for punishment it should be agreed upon by a jury and as long as the law is this simple I'm all for civil service/labor as a part of the punishment.

What do you all think?

  Updated  on Cap 30, 00 / Dec 31, 16 20:28 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Aqu 02, 01 / Jan 2, 17 02:41 UTC

I certainly agree with the general "no victim, no crime" philosophy, but do not feel this to be a warrent for reckless behaviours. It's not good enough no-one was placed into danger this time.

Unfortunately, law itself isn't a simple thing. But the simpler it is kept, the more resilient it can be, and the faster it can adapt.

Any "punishments" warrented should, IMHO, be scalar to both the type(s) and seriousness of the crime. I do generally agree with the viewpoint made in other places that commonly "punishment" isn't the best way to deal with most issues, instead favouring education and example-based rehabilitation methods.

When it comes to law itself, if we set our constitution correctly, there's no real requirement for any particular law - especially as we shall have no borders in which to enforce it for reasonable future - anything required to adhere to should be in there(and is in most draft copies circulating). That's as simple as we could possibly make it?

It's then just a matter of first general concensus of the direction to proceed for various infractions, and distance persued. Once that's decided, we can then work out how best to make that happen. We'll worry about actually making it happen when that's more relevent. But I feel it'd make more sense to focus efforts in guidlines and techniques to deal with various situtations that arise rather than begin binding extra restrictions into those explicitly or implicitly stated in the constitution.

What really should require attention however, and we're a long way away from that, too, is individual facilities operating policies and procedures. These obviously should need to be in the guidelines of our constitution, but would effectively handle what you do/don't do on that facility, and how you do/don't do it. And what happens otherwise. These also obviously require to be handled on a per-facility basis, dependant on facility type/purpose.

Aqu 02, 01 / Jan 2, 17 07:52 UTC

Maybe good, but be careful with fragile people, mind and/or body wise.

Grtz, Dirk.

Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 12:24 UTC

For punishment couldn't we have isolated cells drifting beside Asgardia connected by tethers for of maximum punishment?

Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 14:10 UTC

Why would they need to be tethered? Also, such facilities could be rented to Earth to deal with their criminal problems.

Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 21:58 UTC

Sometimes a crime have no victims at all. Like driving when drunk (and not hit anything on your way) or detonate a bomb in a empty building. Then what? No crime? No punishment?

Aqu 05, 01 / Jan 5, 17 18:32 UTC

Things like driving whilst drunk, or casual explosives use are both highly irresponsible examples of something not happening bad this time. Reckless behaviour. Highly unwise to encourage.

I can see no productive use for being in control of something capable of destruction whilst intoxicated. Controlled demolitions on the other hand do have purpose, especially in regards to things like breaking larger asteriods into smaller pieces for processing. People that like to blow things up can be given somewhere to do so(and applicable training).

Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 04:24 UTC

I don't believe that this would encourage reckless behavior as reckless behavior often does create a victim and if the punishment for that circumstance is severe enough that would be your discouragement. No amount of laws prohibiting behavior has ever stopped or even lessened that behavior from showing up in societies. Here in the us drunk driving can get you a felony and cost 10s of thousands of dollars even if you don't hit anything. This has not had any impact on the number of drunk drivers. The only thing that impacts behaviors like this come from the social influences not the legal.

As for the bomb in an empty building if it is their building and they harm no one why should that be a problem. However if the neighbor goes deaf, its not their property, or someone else's property gets damaged then they have created a victim and committed a crime.

Gem 19, 01 / May 11, 17 21:52 UTC

A better example for a victimless crime would be pirating copyrighted material because it can never have physical consequences resulting in both bodily harm and property damage. And then, you have to branch the case into specific directions : Did you made the copy for your own consumption or for personal finacial gain by selling it? Latter one would produce a 'victim' with scooping profit from the offical rights holder. And so on.

P.S.: I wonder why the discussion stopped for such a long time. Do we have some professionals onboard who could give an insight ?

Gem 26, 01 / May 18, 17 18:10 UTC

@Jason Rainbow :
It is when directly compared to theft of physical property - on a logical basis : you don't take away stuff, you duplicate it. The damage is done in not giving compensation for the usage. I know that we are drilled for decades that copying music and software makes you a mugger/robber/murderer in the face of the industry but that is simply an exaggeration and not a good one.

Don't get me wrong here : I'm no idiotic 12yrs old - I acknowledge the need of compensation and I pay for my music and software.