Victimless Crimes

The term 'victimless crime' states that it is "a legal offense to which all parties consent and no party is injured." But is that truly ever possible? Can a crime be committed where absolutely nobody is hurt whether it is directly or indirectly? My opinion is of course not, every action is bound to have a reaction, so somebody always has the potential to get hurt. Although with that said, I do believe 'victimless crime' does exist with the exception of people being indirectly hurt because of it. Prostitution, Euthanasia and the possession of marijuana are three examples of 'victimless crime' where the individual should be the one considered and not the possible affects it could have on others.

A common example of a victimless crime is prostitution. The act of offering sex for money is illegal and both the "client" and the prostitute can be arrested for it, yet if both parties are deemed to have committed the illegal act consensually, then neither party may be considered victims in the eyes of the law. If an individual wishes to sell themselves sexually as a way of income I believe completely that said individual should be allowed to do so. There are 10,000 prostitutes in the Greater Toronto Area, and more than 4,000 women are in the escort trade. One hour with a prostitute or escort costs a minimum of $150, resulting in the potential for these women to make a very survivable income. If both parties enter into the agreement consensually, they're not directly harming or hurting anyone. As an individual the choice of what you want to do with your own body should be completely yours and the law shouldn't have a say in what you can and can't do with it. So while prostitution may contribute to other domestic problems or personal vices, the act itself, if entered into consensually, is usually considered a victimless crime.

A second 'crime' that I believe to be victimless is Euthanasia. Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering, otherwise known as assisted suicide. The criminal code states that "no person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him" yet if someone is terminally ill or in the utmost pain and suffering constantly don't they deserve the right to ask for the assistance to end their own life? The most controversial euthanasia case in Canada occurred after Robert Latimer had killed his disabled 12-year old daughter in 1993 by placing her in the family truck and pumping exhaust fumes into it. Evidence showed that his daughter had a severe form of cerebral palsy and couldn't walk, talk or feed herself; she was constantly suffering considerable amounts of pain. If someone you love and care about was living everyday wishing they were dead, or didn't possess the ability to do anything for themselves they should be able to consent or have an immediate