Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Francis Bowes Sayre[ (April 30, 1885 – March 29, 1972) was a professor
at Harvard Law School. He later served as ambassador to Siam,High
Commissioner of the Philippines, U.S. representative to the United Nations
Trusteeship Council, and Assistant Secretary of State for President Franklin
Roosevelt] explained this doctrine in columbia law review
. The Supreme Court of america has defined a "public welfare offense" as a crime for which
"a reasonable person should know [that the proscribed activity] is subject to stringent public
regulation and may seriously threaten the community's health or safety." Liparota v. United
States, 471 U.S. 419, 433 (1985). Courts consistently have held that convictions under these
statutes do not require a showing of intent or even negligence. This strict liability rule means
that people can be convicted of a violation without knowledge of the illegality of the action or
even knowledge of the action itself.
Public welfare crime should be distinguished from political crime. In the former,
although the identity of the "victim" may be indirect and sometimes diffuse, it is
cumulatively the community that suffers, whereas in a political crime,
the state perceives itself to be the victim and criminalizes the behaviour it
considers threatening. Thus, public welfare crime includes consensual crime,
victimless vice, and victimless crime. It asserts the need to use the law to
maintain order both in the legal and moral sense. Public welfare crime is now the
preferred term as against the use of the word "victimless" based on the idea that
there are secondary victims (family, friends, acquaintances, and society at large)
that can be identified.
Specific examples
Meier and Geis (1997) contrast the view that prostitution, drugs, and
homosexuality are crimes without victims, with the view that the participants
involved are victims without crimes. The use of the term "public welfare
crime" grew out of the research to test the hypothesis underlying the term
"victimless crime". So-called victimless crimes or crimes without victims were
tested to determine whether a case could be argued that the behaviour
produced harmful consequences for innocent people (p19) recognising that
there was substantial disagreement both about the degree
of culpability inherent in the behaviour and the proper role for the law.
Consequently, the effectiveness and scope of the law has proved limited,
both creating and solving problems. The following are examples of the
research findings used to construct arguments that there are victims. It is
accepted that there are other arguments that many consider equally
convincing (as an example).
Prostitution
Drugs
The use of drugs for religious and recreational purposes is historically
verified among a wide range of cultures. In more modern times, Inciardi
(1992: 1-17) reports that the use of opium,cocaine, and,
later, morphine were common ingredients of patent medicines, and
"opium dens" were not uncommon in the larger urban areas. Extracts
from the coca leaf were included in the original Coca-Cola and, in
1900, heroin was promoted as a cough medication and a treatment for
lung diseases. But problems flowing from addiction led many to perceive
the drug element of medications to be morally destructive. In the United
States, the Supreme Court decisions of Webb et al v U.S. 249 U.S. 96
(1919) [1] and U.S. v Behrman 258 U.S. 280 (1922) [2] drove the use of
narcotics underground and consolidated their criminal status.