About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

9 J. Contemp. Crim. Just. iii (1993)

handle is hein.journals/jccj9 and id is 1 raw text is: Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice iii Vol. 9 No. 1 March 1993 EDITORIAL COMMENT The topic victimless crime has been frequently debated both in crimi- nology and criminal justice since it first appeared in the writings of Edwin Schur in 1965. Much of that discussion has focused on what can and should be the effective and proper scope of the criminal law. Early monographs and articles (e.g. Schur, 1965; Schur and Bedau, 1974; Kadish, 1967; Packer, 1968; Morris and Hawkins, 1977; and Geis, 1979) debated and discussed the pros and cons of decriminalization of such acts, while never providing a clear conceptual definition of the term. It was not until 1988 that a specific attempt to provide such a definition was provided by Stitt. That definition, focusing on the attribution of victim status, defines a victimless crime as, an illegal act in which no one is hanned, or if harm occurs it is negated due to the informed consent of the participant(s) (Stitt, 1988:99). Those who provide consent must be adults, and harm can take any of five forms: (1) harm to person, (2) harm to property, (3) psychological harm, (4) social harm, and (5) harm to the individual's freedom. Perhaps, as a result of the lack of clear and concise definition of the term victimless crime there had been a distinct absence of empirical studies assessing the dimensions of attitudes and problems related to victimless crimes. Two of the papers included in this volume present empirical analyses of victimless crime issues. Louis Veneziano and Carol Veneziano analyze student opinions regarding the extent of harm, if any, resulting from victimless crimes. Theirs is an interesting piece because it suggests that perhaps the public's perceptions of harm resulting from involvement in victimless crimes may be greater than those of criminologists, who may be somewhat desensitized to the state of the human condition. Further, the public may not be as ready to except decriminalization as is sometimes thought. However, as the authors point out, it is possible that their results have limited generalizability due to the characteristics of the sample and that further research in this area is needed. Next, Patrick Kinkade and Matthew Leone analyze the opinions of a sample of sheriffs throughout the country regarding attitudes about victimless crimes the enforcement of victimless crime laws. They specifically address concerns regarding the overburdened criminal justice system and whether given system constraints the sheriffs might favor decriminalization. Perhaps to no one's surprise the relatively conservative sheriffs generally do not favor decriminalization. This study even more than the Veneziano piece reflects the attitudes of a narrow based sample. Clearly more research is needed to ascertain the attitudes of the population as a whole. John Dombrink, then, offers an insightful analysis of victimless crimes as social issues impacting the religious, political, and economic forces at work in the United States inthe 1990s. Beginning with the 1960s perspective that criminal law should be used to enforce behaviors thought of as vice,

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most