Laws in America are argued about every day, and there never is a “right” answer.
Even though in plenty of laws, it is clear to see what is morally right, people will always
have different opinions. Who is to say the person who has the uncommon opinion is
wrong? Because there will always be controversy, America had to do it the fairest way
possible: give everybody a vote and see what the results are per law. In “On Liberty,”
John Stuart Mill spends a good deal of time talking about laws that do not affect other
people and questions if individuals should be able to do what they want, as long as it does
not hurt anybody else. Mill thinks that if it is what the person wants, and affects no other
party, then why not allow it? I agree with this point. People should be able to do things as
long as it does not hurt somebody else, because everybody should be able to do what they
want, so that they can live their lives to the fullest!
These crimes that do not hurt others are often referred to as “victimless crimes.” A
victimless crime is defined as an infraction of criminal law without any identifiable
evidence of another individual that has suffered damage in the infraction (Princeton).
These laws include little things, too, such as drug selling/possession, prostitution, and
gambling. In the end of these criminal acts, nobody ends up coming out hurt unless the
criminal breaks another law.
Therefore, I agree with Mill stating that victimless crimes should not be punished,
especially if it has nothing to do with any other party. The United States is always
referred to as “The Land of the Free” and is known for its freedom, but still prevents
people from doing stuff that only involves their own self-interest. This is a very
controversial topic, there was a recent news story that had plenty to do with it. A woman
named Brittany Maynard randomly and spontaneously got diagnosed with cancer very
1
shortly after her wedding. Doctors told her she had a few years to live and that the disease
was terminal. A few months later, she went back to the doctor for a checkup and the
disease had gotten progressively worse, and that she had six months to live. Brittany
made the decision that she wanted to take her own life in a humane way, instead of going
through all of the pain, spending all of the family’s money, and leaving “without dignity.”
She wanted to pass away peacefully, with the people she loved around her and I believe
that she should have the right to do so. Many cancer patients and pro-life organizations
were trying to talk her out of taking her life, but she knew what she wanted. In cases like
these, people should have the right to do stuff like that. If somebody does not want to
spend life in pain and would rather leave in peace, why should they be stopped? In the
news article, it seems like from Brittany’s quotes that she is thinking pretty clearly about
2
