Do you agree with this definition of what a crime and victim is?

  1. This definition defines a crime as an act in a victim, then proceedes to define a victim as a person. I believe crimes can be committed on organizations, institutions, ect. where it could be difficult or impossible to identify specific persons who were directly victimized by the act. Thus I think this definition misses many possible criminal acts, and only seems effective for crimes between two people.

  2. It’s too vague, especially the use of “against” in Section 1. Would planning a surprise party or playing an April Fool’s prank on someone be a crime by this definition? Would buying from a competitor be inflicting a “financial loss” on the victim? I think this definition, while simplifying the law codes, would overload the court system, both by increasing the number of cases, and by making individual cases more difficult to resolve due to ambiguity.

  3. A crime is engaging in behavior the state you reside in deems unacceptable and punishable. It is a subjective, socially caused matter bound to change, not an objective rule of life. There is no crime in the wilderness.

  4. So you necessarily agree with this because it is literally describing the laws of its state and what constitutes what is punishable

  5. You at least need to add the word perpetrator to the first one and definite it. Based on your definitions, if I beat someone at chess and someone punched them at the same time, I'm guilty of a crime. The person I beat is definitionally, a victim and beating them at a game is an action against them. No where in your definitions do you connect perpetrator and crime together

  6. Sec 3 and 4 suck because there are many cases where it could be circumvented simply on a technicality

  7. The basic concept is correct, but it's missing some important details, especially in relation to section 2 & 3. For example, if you were walking by a person's house, and they were somehow beyond offended by the seemingly normal clothes you were wearing, they could claim they were mentally traumatized, and now you're a criminal for being a pedestrian wearing clothes. It's ridiculous, and you'd have a very good chance of the case going nowhere, but the fact that it became a case in the first place is already a disaster.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin