Crime Is Victimless Crime

Can the act of a crime ever occur without a legitimate victim? This is a question that has remained in the conscious of the social science community for a prolonged period of time. More specifically in the field of sociology and criminology due to the controversy surrounding the very term. In order to comprehend the background of this heavily debated question and to formulate an accurate position through the following arguments. It is of grave importance to first understand the definition of all key terms. The formal phrase for the idea in questioning here is known as “victimless crime”. A term that has only begun to spark debate on its prevalence in society in more recent years. The definition of a victimless crime is that it's essentially a criminal act that involves consenting adults to said act and lacks a complaining participant (Schur et al, 1965).
Therefore there should be no reason for its illegality. After all, certain actions are perceived as crime when they can possibly be of harm to anyone involved. However is it soundly plausible that there no possibility for there to be any sort causality of these “victimless crimes”? What constitutes a victimless crime is clear in the sense that there is no immediate or comprehensive casualty in the majority of cases. However to formulate an analysis of that statement. Understanding the definitions of the separate terms “crime” and “victim” are crucial. According to the Canadian Department of Justice. “A victim is defined as a person who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage, or economic loss as a result of a crime” (Who is a victim of crime,