No Damage, No Crime?

[Cavalcade]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[FlyingRon]

Avoid using the PREVIEW feature, it doesn't work reliably.

You're going to have to give us more info than just the subject line.

 

[quincy]

Calvacade, the "preview" feature on this site does not work for all people all of the time (no idea why) so, if you previewed your post first, submitting the post probably deleted it instead.

You can try again to post your question by using the "edit post" function at the bottom of your original post, or you can "reply to thread" and add your question that way.

I can tell you in advance and based only on your thread title, however, that "damage" does not need to occur for a crime to have been committed. The harm comes from the committing of the crime. The fact that there was no apparent damage resulting from the crime can potentially help to lessen the penalty (just as damage can help to increase the penalty).

An example: You speed. That is a violation of the law. Even if you do not hit another car or lose control of your vehicle and crash into a stationary object or a person, you have still violated the law.

 

[CdwJava]

There are some crimes, however, that require a dollar value to BE a crime. Vandalism, for instance - and theft. Even a hit-and-run collision. In these instances if there is a lack of damage there is no crime.

If, however, you are wanting to talk about the Freeman/Constitutionalist idea that there must be harm or damage for there to a be a crime, you'd be wrong. A crime (a violation of statutory law) can occur even without harm.

 

[quincy]

There are some crimes, however, that require a dollar value to BE a crime. Vandalism, for instance - and theft. Even a hit-and-run collision. In these instances if there is a lack of damage there is no crime. ...

Explain please, Carl. I don't understand.

 

[CdwJava]

Explain please, Carl. I don't understand.

The way the statutes are written (at least in CA) there has to be a value to be a crime. The damage or loss might be minimal, but the value of the loss or damage cannot be zero. It's not a crime to steal something of no value ... though, it's hard to conceive of something that has NO value.

And for vandalism, if there is no damage, arguably no vandalism has occurred. When some kids TP a house, for instance, what's the real value of the damage? Littering, maybe, but vandalism? Now, in some counties they might argue that the time used to clean up the mess has value, and that would be the cost of the damage.

 

[quincy]

The way the statutes are written (at least in CA) there has to be a value to be a crime. The damage or loss might be minimal, but the value of the loss or damage cannot be zero. It's not a crime to steal something of no value ... though, it's hard to conceive of something that has NO value.

And for vandalism, if there is no damage, arguably no vandalism has occurred. When some kids TP a house, for instance, what's the real value of the damage? Littering, maybe, but vandalism? Now, in some counties they might argue that the time used to clean up the mess has value, and that would be the cost of the damage.

Ahh. Your examples are good ones. Thanks.

Edit to add: I find the different legal treatment of chalk-graffiti artists interesting - with some West Coast courts saying no harm, no foul, and some East Coast courts calling the chalk drawings vandalism and ordering community service.

 

[CdwJava]

Ahh. Your examples are good ones. Thanks.

Edit to add: I find the different legal treatment of chalk-graffiti artists interesting - with some West Coast courts saying no harm, no foul, and some East Coast courts calling the chalk drawings vandalism and ordering community service.

That goes along with the differing courts' and prosecutors' theories here. I have found that if it costs money to clean up, it is a crime. If someone merely squirts a hose on it and its done, no crime. Since the damage is not permanent, about all you can do is apply the cost of the clean-up.