i agree with what was said

i agree with what was said

Point made.

Without the violation of rights there can be no crime. A crime without a victim is a crime which violated no right.

There is no crime without a victim.

Beware though, a victim must not defined as they who one can feel pity for nor can the violation of a right be restricted to direct interaction.

In criminal law, the victim of a crime is the state. Thus there is no such thing as a victimless crime.

That said, I would lower the age of consent and repeal laws against prostitution. Californians will be voting on the legalization of marijuana, which we already decriminalized anyway, and I'll be voting against it.

The state can't be a victim its an abstraction.

Or to be more precise the only way to make a victim out of a state is to victimize every member.

Exactly. In criminal law, the citizens are the ones harmed by crime, severally. That is what distinguishes a crime from a tort.

The question is really whether abolition of a particular law is better or worse for society.

The question should be whether abolition of a particular law is right or wrong, much like all other questions pertaining to law.

You cannot harm all people with a crime of human ability, so you cannot hold society or even a country as a victim.