Organized Law

An issue has been troubling me lately is one of no importance with the general public, which is why it has concerns me. The issue is not really an issue as much as it is baby-sitting on the part of authority on behalf of the public. The issue is that of the victimless crime. A law exists in order to protect the public, as well as making sure that everything runs "smoothly". But what happens when a law exists which does not have anything to do with protecting us from others, but instead from ourselves? Many argue that "special interest groups" overstep their bounds by trying to impose their views on the system, but these people who oppose this in the name of freedom rarely question such regulations already in effect. Morality has no effect on the judicial system, and the opinions of the lawmakers are imposed on the citizens. This, I feel, is a flagrant violation of the rights of the populous.

Stealing is against the law. It is so because we must protect people from robbers, and upholding the standards of the system. The same goes for countless laws; they are in place in order to reduce the number of victims, essentially. But why is it that we have laws which prohibit activities which, if occurred, would have no negative effects on anyone? For instance having to wear a helmet. In Victoria it is illegal not to wear a helmet on a bike, motored or otherwise. I always wear one anyway, but what right does the law have to impose such a regulation? Worst case scenario, a car hits someone while on his or her bicycle. The person in the car suffers no differently if the cyclist wears a helmet or not, the only person who suffers is the cyclist, the one who made that decision. The crime of riding without a helmet has no victims; it is a choice, these kinds of regulations set dangerous precedents.

"Special Interest Groups" to use an overcoined phrase often exist to impose their own moral views on others, something usually seen as unconstitutional by the opposition, of which there is plenty. We realize that someone who wants to limit what TV we watch is simply making others adhere to their beliefs, so why can we not see that victimless crimes are the same way? If someone decides that we must prohibit watching shows with no moral values and/or violence it seems absurd, even though it would be for our own good. Why do we let the law get away with this behavior? Such limitations may be seen as the first step towards more moral laws made by reactionaries, or leftists as often described although unrightfully. The helmet laws, among others, are seen as something we should do anyway, and it is in place for the better of the people. Why do the police get to place their moral views upon us? Since when did they become morality police? These are laws based on moral decisions, but on cannot argue conflicting views in a court of law, which differences on the belief of crimes which affect nobody clearly are.

Let’s say one received a ticket for not wearing a helmet while riding their bicycle. This ticket only exists because someone decided we are incapable of making our own decision and that we as a society are incapable of knowing what we want. This law, someone decided, was the right thing even though the violators hurt no one but themselves. So someone receives a fine for conflicting morality, goes to court, and their defense is that they see nothing wrong with it. The court cannot tell the defendant anyone who could be hurt by this offense, nor why the law exists, yet the ticket will remain despite debate or differences in people. Such a stance is unjust, people have the right to do whatever they want as long as nobody else is aversely effected.

This is a simple difference of point of view; the system feels the need to baby-sit. The helmet laws are just one example of victimless crimes. Others, such as ignoring traffic lights at 4 in the morning, or smoking marijuana among others do not make as good examples because their legality can be argued to effect others, a debate for the sake of brevity I will not touch. But the helmet laws CANNOT have any effect on anyone but the person who makes the decision. I see such restrictions as unlawful and immoral, despite the fact I always wear a helmet. This is the first step towards censorship, which is often seen as good for the majority, but is another step for restrictions in our everyday freedom. We must keep such issues in check to truly be free.

By Shane Barter