sabi ng mga modern criminologists, there is such a thing. according to them, yong daw mga crimes na committed by the offender himself ay considered victimless crime, do you agree? 

                para skn bro tama rn dpndin nrn kc ang ganda ng mga laws ntn pero sb nga nla ignorans of the excempted no one

....its not victimless afterall, coz he himself is the victim of the crime he himself commited...... ;D lol

yun mga white collar crime kuno ang considered victimless crimes...but kung naloko ang mga big companies dahil sa kagagohan ng empleyado... those companies loss  eventually trickles down to us the consumers, so we end up eating up the costs. In short, we the consumers are the victims.  :-\

NYA HA HA

In common understanding of what crime means is that the act implies that there is both perpetrator and a victim of the wrongful behavior. With victimless crimes, this general rule does not apply.

VICTIMLESS crime is just a term for purposes of classifying crimes, refer to those crimes in which no clear victim is readily identifiable. In other words, the only injured party is the offender, who engages in self-destructive behavior.

These crimes are also called moral offenses or vice. Many of these crimes generally refer to Public Order Crimes – an offense that is consensual and lacks a complaining participant. It is rare in these cases are victims who seek prosecution.  ;D

with all due respect to our expert sir SS... I still think a victimless crime is a misnomer coz there IS a victim in these cases... it may not be obvious at first but there is always a secondary victim...

let's take prostitution for instance... that is considered a public order crime or consensual between the john and the prosti... is there a victim here? at 1st glance it may not seem to be but then the john may be a victim of "entrapment" and at the same time the ho can be a victim of the injustices from society.

another scenario would be computer hacking.... another one considered a victimless crime.... but is there really no victim in this case??? I think not... coz if those companies whose info were hacked had lost some of it's profits for whatever reason... they're gonna upgrade their computer security system, we >>> the consumers>>> are still gonna pay for those added extra cost in terms of higher cost of business.

same as above goes for insider trading which is essentially a white collar crime... yeah it doesn't have any victim per se but it still affects the greater public because that "victimless act" had  undermined the commercial effectiveness of their normal business practice..... so the affected public which can be you or me...became the secondary victims.

with today's information age, it'll be more common to see litigations such as class action lawsuits against these perpetrators. it just takes a very patient and resourceful group of legal team.

peace sir SS 

btw sir ss, it's nice to see ur pink and bold fonts back in business... nyahahahaha

may I sit-in in one of ur classes sir? 

NYA HA HA HA...NYA HA HA...come in baguiopal..and u'll be the "cream of the crop" nya ha ha

like i said...the term "victimless crime" is just used simply for purposes of classifying crimes...in the language of the criminologists and law enforcement officers...we doesnt mean that there are really no victims in these crimes..but we mean, thse are crimes which lack complaining parties...

with this classification, we could easily be able to identify crimes in the modern world as..organized crimes, whiter collar crimes, conventional crimes, and victimless crimes..

So as long as no one complains, it is a 'victimless' crime?

ah... ok I get it now sir SS. Thanks for the clarification. nya ha ha hihihi  ;D  ;D

yeah ur ryt AA... ..second demotion naman toh???.....like a raped case and didnt complain is considered victimless crime..ahe....