Speeding and Prostiution

[SPman]

Yeah, yeah but I did say "mostly" Mr H and women in leadership is a fairly new concept here and one that a lot of men find difficult to handle b/c the prime minister isn't some blonde bombshell with a great rack! :sly:

She Isn't!!! Bugger, perhaps I should start watching the news more often.....when people said we had a women prime minister I sort of assumed.........well...y know.................

[bluninja]

[QUOTE=jrandom]Aha! Not quite.

Crimes Act 1961 (as amended), part 7 s134:

"(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who has or attempts to have sexual intercourse with any girl of or over the age of 12 years and under the age of 16 years, not being his wife."/QUOTE]

Hmmmm....so can you get married in NZ before the age of 16??

[bluninja]

Interesting post....however I disagree with the poster that said that speeding is not a victimless crime....speeding is victimless.....having an accident has victims...whether excessive speed is involved or not...they are different things.

[Deano]

Interesting post....however I disagree with the poster that said that speeding is not a victimless crime....speeding is victimless.....having an accident has victims...whether excessive speed is involved or not...they are different things.

There are some fast bikers who sit at Kaitoke awaiting unsuspecting victims.......then blast past them up the Taka's.

[vifferman]

Yeah, yeah but I did say "mostly" Mr H and women in leadership is a fairly new concept here and one that a lot of men find difficult to handle b/c the prime minister isn't some blonde bombshell with a great rack! :sly:

A luggage rack? Like Ventura, or Givi, or like that there?
So she'd be, like, a motorcyclist then?

[Bandito]

Some simplistic conspiracy theories at play here.

Prostitution is legal because society is prepared to tolerate it -- after all it is hard to criminalise something that has no victim -- as long as people don't get their faces rubbed in it.

Speeding is about road safety. It is a crime that can have victims and dire consequences. Society demands that something is done to address this.

Without wanting to get the "tight sphincter" brigade from the religious ravings thread into a foam, the same argument advanced above for prostitution also applies to homosexuality.

I beg to differ that prostitution is a victimless crime! What percentage of the illegel drug industrie's turnover is supported by prostitution .ie. people who are forced into prostitution as result of an addiction they did not want but was forced or manipulated upon them in the first place? Something our revenue hungry government would have (conviniently) overlooked in there quest for more dollars, NOT in the interests of the nation's social well being. I'm with bros400 onthis one.

[Hitcher]

I beg to differ that prostitution is a victimless crime! What percentage of the illegel drug industrie's turnover is supported by prostitution .ie. people who are forced into prostitution as result of an addiction they did not want but was forced or manipulated upon them in the first place? Something our revenue hungry government would have (conviniently) overlooked in there quest for more dollars, NOT in the interests of the nation's social well being. I'm with bros400 onthis one.

Prostitution itself isn't the issue here.

I guess that I should define "prostitution" for the purposes of this debate, which I see as the willing exchange of cash for sexual favours. Willing buyer, willing seller, therefore "victimless" in its purist sense. Yes, people can get ripped off, just like any commercial transaction. Yes people may do it behind the backs of their partners (some people reading this have probably bought all manner of goods and services which they have concealed from their partners) but that is a moral or personal conscience issue. There is a significant difference between legal and moral issues and discussion of this could fill a thread to rival the "religious ravings" next door!

There are countless examples of exploitation and where one group of people is "forced" into a situation that furthers the interests of others. There are laws to deal with exploitation -- that's one of the reasons civilised developed nations have labour laws and laws about slavery, etc.

Legalising prostitution helps expose a lot of the shady practices about gangs, drugs, illegal Thai immigrants that existed because it was illegal! Prostitution itself does no harm, which is why I support its legalisation; as opposed to marijuana and other mind-altering substances which do do harm, and why I believe should remain criminalised.

[James Deuce]

I beg to differ that prostitution is a victimless crime! What percentage of the illegel drug industrie's turnover is supported by prostitution .ie. people who are forced into prostitution as result of an addiction they did not want but was forced or manipulated upon them in the first place? Something our revenue hungry government would have (conviniently) overlooked in there quest for more dollars, NOT in the interests of the nation's social well being. I'm with bros400 onthis one.

Ahhh, the old "it's not my fault I'm a prostitute/drug addict/convicted child killer argument."

Get real. We have a crime industry/lifestyle in this country because of the lack of personal responsibility.

[Skyryder]

The so called conflict, of justice and the law, can be better understood when the function of the two componets (justice/law) are known. Justice is not about guilt or innocent. It is the end product of due process (law) that will result in either guilt or innocent. The difference is subtle to be sure. The law on the other hand is concerned with the protection of the innocent. To put this in simple terms if the collection of evidence and its presentation is legal then Justice should prevail. Get it wrong and Justice should still prevail. The guilty will walk free but so will the innocent. The real problem with our justice system is the lopsided resources that is available to each side. The crown versus Joe Blogs. Take this into the civil area where you are up against say a corperation and even if you win the corperation will bury you through the appeal process.

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

It would certainly be a lot more efficient to do away with all this due process and legal niceties. Just let the police get on with the job. After all, they know when someone's guilty. Why bother with an expensive trial, an overpaid judge and defense lawyers who abuse the system by getting their clients acquitted on some piddling technicality. There are much better ways. I can certainly appreciate your frustration, Spud!

While I'm all for locking up the bad guys I wouldn't suggest that due process should be chucked in the bin. From reading your reply I think you have somewhat jumped the gun here. I wasn't suggesting that police should be the start and finish of the justice system as your post seems to imply. I was suggesting that their is a link between the publics / victims dissatisfaction as to the outcomes and the limitations of the justice system because of due process.

[spudchucka]

Legalising prostitution helps expose a lot of the shady practices about gangs,

It also gives gangs a legitimate business in which to launder their dirty drug money.

The act of one person exchanging $$$ for a shag is in itself pretty harmless. However prostitution is directly linked to the underworld of organised crime and drug trafficing. I'm not saying that they are all dodgy but there is a very real connection to organised crime in many of them.

[Hitcher]

It also gives gangs a legitimate business in which to launder their dirty drug money.

There are all sort of ways that money can be "laundered" other than through brothels. Casinos are one -- and all you need is access to one, ownership is not a requirement. Similarly the TAB, particularly now you can have an on-line account. From a societal point-of-view, casinos and legalised gambling (such as pokies) are more of a crime than prostitution can ever be, particularly their ability to take money off people who can least afford to lose it...

[MikeL]

Prostitution itself does no harm, which is why I support its legalisation; as opposed to marijuana and other mind-altering substances which do do harm, and why I believe should remain criminalised.

I agree with your definition of prostitution as a victimless crime. Whether it does harm is a more difficult question to answer. Certainly the major negative effects socially come from the indirect consequences and these have more likely than not been the result of its illegality. Therefore I view decriminalisation as a logical and commonsense approach to the problem, and can only wonder why it took so long... From a moral perspective (in terms of individual behaviour) there is no clear answer. The reduction of sex to a commercial transaction may be distasteful and psychologically it may well lead to low self-respect but I can't see how, objectively, it is any different from many other negative behaviours. From the point of view of the client the social, moral and psychological issues involved are, to my mind, less connected to the question of payment for sex than to matters of monogamy, fidelity etc. It is hard to see how a single, unattached man is harmed by paying money for sex. In many societies (including our own, in the past, albeit with much hypocrisy involved) a prostitute was considered a necessary and desirable way for a young man to gain sexual experience so that when he got married his wife was spared some awkward and inept fumblings...

Your comparison with marijuana and other mind-altering substances is altogether more contentious. I have an open mind on the question of the harm caused (I don't deny that there can be undesirable consequences) but I am also aware of the hypocrisy involved. It seems clear to me that marijuana, for instance, which was perfectly legal until I think the early 1920s, was criminalized largely due to the lobbying of the American pulp and paper industry that feared the competition from hemp growers. And for people to preach about personal responsibility while at the same time using the state to restrict the freedom of others to explore their inner space through psychotropic substances strikes me as inconsistent to say the least.

[Hitcher]

Your comparison with marijuana and other mind-altering substances is altogether more contentious.

I accept what you say, particularly given the "double standards" governments have had historically with other mind-altering or largely unhealthful substances such as alcohol and tobacco. I believe that the use of all such products should be regulated, as a minimum to protect the innocent. Defining "the innocent" takes some effort. However such an even-handed regulatory environment is unlikely while the government continues to pocket shitloads of dosh from excise and other taxes...

[Gixxer 4 ever]

A luggage rack? Like Ventura, or Givi, or like that there?
So she'd be, like, a motorcyclist then?

So what?....you want to ride it now