Ending Victimless Crimes

Let us dispose of the phrase “victimless crime” in one swoop of etymological research!

First, we must realize that the word “crime” comes from the 13th century French word crimne, which means “sinfulness.” In a theocratic society, one where the law of the land is based on a contract between the inhabitants and God, what constitutes crime is whatever God says is sinful. However, in our modern and secular society, we do not base our law on the supremacy of God, but on the supremacy and genealogy of the Constitution.

Now, according to our Constitution, “enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that while a Missouri citizen does not have the right to declare war (a power exclusively entrusted to Congress), they do have the ability to retain their right to bear arms (in all ages, shapes, and forms).

What, then, does it mean to commit crime in our present age? Sin may still be a factor for those that have committed themselves (or their household) to upholding a contract between themselves and God, but this cannot spill over into the public realm of crime (as the freedom to contract between gods is an exclusive right of each individual). According to Frank Lambert, the framers of our Constitution wanted to throw off the reign of state religion, which had been so much a part of the tyrannical past. “Regarding religion as a natural right that the governed never surrendered to government, they prohibited any interference in citizens’ rights to the free exercise of religion.” So, sin cannot be a factor of committing a crime unless in the private lives of an individual’s own contract with God.

It is clear, then, that the modern definition of committing crime must come from the act of infringing on the supreme law of the land. Back to our Etymology: The word “Infringe” comes from the Latin word Infringere. This word holds two root meaning, In meaning “Upon,” and frangere, meaning “To Break.” So, “upon breaking” the law of the land, which is our United States Constitution, one is committing a crime.

This weighs significantly against what neo-liberals and social conservatives claim is criminal. To pull from a previous example, it would be criminal, to declare war, but not criminal, to bear arms. While one may have a strong, personal, religious conviction that it is morally wrong to eat pork or have hatred in one’s own heart towards a fellow man, these cannot constitute crimes.

Also, something cannot be considered criminal prior to action (UPON breaking). One might have the urge to declare war, and may even talk to their friends about how nice it would be to declare war, but this does NOT constitute a crime. Part of our Constitutional genealogy is the purpose of government that is found in our Declaration of Independence, which states “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Government, which goes all the way down to local townships, is in place to protect people from being infringed by others.   

Now, what do we do with “crimes” like speeding, drug use, and homosexuality? According to our etymology and our genealogy, these are acts which do not infringe on other people, and do not infringe on the law of the land. Any regulation of these sorts cannot constitute “crime.”

In conclusion, if one has a strong moral opposition to another person’s action, they should feel free to exercise their right to proselytize and get other people to make similar contracts with God, but it isn’t “crime.”

Published in

Post a comment