Talk:Public-order crime

Untitled
A little bit of Bias? I find some issue with "The rise in cost to the state can only be met out of tax revenue, but the burden is not shared equally. Similarly, the substantial profits made by the dealers is not taxed. Thus, the citizens who declare income for tax purposes must pay more to offset the cost of drug taking in their society." It seems biased to have the word substantial in there, as the profits of a drug dealer are not sourced, and are often enough not substantial. I also wonder why the first sentance here is necessary. the tax system in the United States is unequal, so it not noteworthy that the burden of paying for anything with taxes in unequal. I recognize that this is a crimonology part of the site, not a debate over the morailty of drug dealing, but the end of this paragraph, especially the above quote, seems a bit biased to me. FalconBob 18:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Material removed
"==Conflict with civil liberties== The claim of "protecting public order" or the accusation that a given person or entitiy is threatening public order has also been one of the main tools of control used by governments attempting to suppress dissent or personal freedoms that cannot be legislated against. As Amnesty International points out, "Zheng Yunsu, the leader of the Jesus Family, a Protestant community in Shandong province, is one of many people who are behind bars simply for practising their religion. He was arrested during a police raid on the community in 1992 and later sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for "disrupting public order" and "swindling". His four sons and other members of the group were also imprisoned. Amnesty International believes they are prisoners of conscience." . Likewise, this device was used by the Soviet Union and other communist countries, as well as by other totalitarian governments. "

This seems to be pure politics and, unless you have a source placing this in a criminology text book or article, this has no place on this page. David91 14:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I coud say the same thing about the politics. Please check references already in the text, you probably did not notice them the first time around. Haiduc 15:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your sense of humour in referring me to my own references shows courage. I am starting a new page for you for non-criminology purposes. See Public order (China) David91 15:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

All for public order
I am perplexed at your resistance to discuss this particular use (or misuse) of public order laws. Also, the references I was referring to were links embedded in the section I posted and you removed, not the ones at the bottom of the page. To my lights, the new material is well documented. Haiduc 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Public order crime" is a term of art in criminology and, as such, it sits in the Criminology/Penology classification with a hopefully well-referenced explanation. You proposed to introduce a news item about China. This is a perfectly respectable piece of information on the generic topic of public order offenses around the world. I have therefore placed it on a new page where it can be developed by the addition of the many other examples of repression from China. I am also establishing a disambiguation page which will switch to this new page as a generic example of the topic otherwise known as victimless crimes. Forgive what may seem to be a pedantic approach but I am seeking to maintain a proper academic standard on the criminology and criminal law pages in the Wiki and hope that you will accept a ==See also== reference as an adequate compromise. David91 18:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * David, I hope you do not mind my copying you here, it helps me focus. I would have felt a lot better about this discussion if you had framed it in terms other than "a news item about China." Forgive me, but I find that a bit disingenuous. You are writing this article - from a global standpoint - apparently in order to clarify the difference between the popular notion that there is such a thing as a "victimless crime" and the reality that such crimes do have victims, though they might not be immediately evident. An essential part of this article is a discussion on the use (and misuse) of such laws for the purpose of restricting civil freedoms - in general, not just in specific locations. Thus my contribution was not "about China" but about the enforcement of public order crime wherever it may occur, its ramifications and political implications. Thus your solution misses the point. If you wish to remove what may well be a lengthy discussion to another article, then what should be done is to summarize the argument in a paragraph or so, under a separate heading with a link to the other article (say, Civil rights and public order crime).


 * If you will permit me a couple of unrelated comments, I find your discussion of prostitution flawed, in that it generalizes conclusions without taking into consideration the existence of male prostitution (rent boys).


 * Also, your discussion of drugs presumes that "most prohibited substances act as disinhibitors and either encourage antisocial behavior or reduce the sense of guilt," an assumption that is far from universally accepted, indeed that is hotly contested. Sources? Something on the debate? Haiduc 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a criminology page not a global page. Some relevant law is on Public order crime case law in the United States, the Libertarian view is on victimless crime (political philosophy), etc. When I considered how to respond to your material, my first thought was that it would be better placed as a contemporary example on the political crime page. But I was interested by the decision of the West to translate the Chinese as "public order crime". Out of all the Western equivalents that could have been chosen, the selection of those words seemed to justify a separate page. Perhaps I erred in limiting the new page title to China. If Amnesty and the other major international NGOs consistently use the term, a more globalised title would be justified and a reference to human and/or civil rights would be welcome.

As to your other observations on prostitution and drugs, I very carefully did cite my sources. The words that appear in both sections are not my own except and in so far as they paraphrase rather than directly quote the sources. I did not include material on rent boys because I did not have a verifiable source in criminology literature. If you are aware of such material, please add it. And as to the "hotly contested" assumption (which I quoted), please refer me to verifiable sources on the debate so that the balancing material you think is necessary can be added. David91 04:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * David, I find your rebuttal (This is a criminology page not a global page.) unpersuasive. If you wish this article to be about Public order law in the UK then title it accordingly and I will not bring in foreign data. But I am 100% certain that is not your intent. Your wish to keep this a sterile environment free of discussion of the political ramification of the use and misuse of such laws might be appropriate in a criminology text (though even there I would question its wisdom). In the Wikipedia it is simply misleading and presents a one-eyed view of a complex topic. I agree with you that it would be better to include material from academic texts, but as a stopgap measure I think it is in keeping with editorial policy here to make use of other sources, such as the media.
 * As for the prostitution issue, the material needs to be presented as applying only to the prostitution of women. As for the imbalance in the drug discussion, please look here for starters. Haiduc 11:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your guidance. I am frequently out of step with modern sensibilities and, being old, I frequently forget what I take for granted. With your prodding, I recognize that I should have added two explanations to the article,
 * (a) to distinguish political crime. This is the sentence I will add: Public order 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 criminal's behavior is considered threatening.

I was and remain more than happy for you to post as many examples of political crimes as you wish to that page. I wrote that page too and freely accept the idea of contemporary examples of the phenomenon. As to sterility, I draw your attention to the case law. I have selected eight examples from the U.S. and they are anything but dull. This is a highly charged area and, for all that I have attempted to frame it dispassionately, it still evokes passion. Nevertheless, there is a proper place for everything and, by virtue of the definitions currently accepted by criminology, your first offered and properly sourced material fits elsewhere. If you want to include contemporary examples of public order crimes as defined by criminology, that is also fine by me. Pollution, environmental, health and safety, road traffic examples are desirable even though some examples may overlap with corporate crime and state-corporate crime. David91 16:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (b) to explain that the examples of prostitution and drugs are not intended as a balanced exploration of the issues. The use of the term "Public order crime" grew out of the increasing lack of credibility in the previous term "victimless crime". The theorists researched those crimes labeled victimless and identified victims. Because there was empirical evidence to repute the hypothesis on which victimless crimes had been posited, the new term reflected crimes as a disruption to public order, i.e. the ordinary lives of the public.

Remaining content deleted for vulgar language Sunrising 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, redefining "victimless crime" as "public order crime" sounds a lot like newspeak. How in the heck can anyone prove that all such crimes do "indeed have victims". If somebody walks home drunk and doesn't have an accident, where's the victim (as contrasted to "potential victims")? Likewise, if someone views pornography when they are 18, then commits rape 25 years later, how can anyone prove that viewing the porn created a victim? Yelling "fire" (when there is not one) in a crowded building or brandishing a weapon is a violation of public order; private acts between consenting adults is not. I find this article AND talk page to be enormously biased; definitely POV (not NPOV), and I strongly oppose the merging of the "victimless crime (political philosophy)" with this page. Also, I think this Talk page needs to be Wikified; I wish I had the patience, proficiency, and authority to do it. Shanoman 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the user Shanoman in that the redefining of victimless crimes to public order crimes is highly Orwellian. This public order crime entry is written entirely from a criminology text book perspective and practically has the DOJ stamp of approval on it. Blanket assertions that victimless crimes do have victims has no basis in fact, it is an opinion, an opinion by the same institutions that continue to support their status of illegality. Furthermore statements that public order crimes are based on a culture's morality and they shift as the culture shifts is also without proof to back it up. One could just as easily make the case, perhaps even more convincingly that public order crimes are based on a culture's shifting standards of individual liberty since they diminish individual liberty. Finally, public order crimes should be the link that points to victimless crimes, not the other way around. Just because some law and order types created a new phrase to describe the same phenomenon doesn't mean we should all start using their new catchphrase and definitions. 72.206.12.250 17:54, 04 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.12.250 (talk)

This is certainly biased. For one thing it denies the possibility of their being truly victimless crimes. Exactly how did homosexual sex or interracial marriage hurt public order? It may have been some people's opinions that they did, but that doesn't mean that it actually did. Also in the "why criminalize" section the explanation seems to be a general explanation for why the government carries out criminal law instead of victims doing it themselves rather than an explanation specifically for "public order crimes". TheRealdeal (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition
I was under the impression that a public order offence was one that was intended to prevent violence (including preventing persons subjected to provocative behaviour from "taking matters into their own hands"). I was under the impression that public order offences were those that dealt with violence (sections 1 to 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 are respectively riot, violent disorder and affray), intimidation, threats, insults (try section 4 of the same Act), defamation (e.g. defamatory libel) and other provocative behaviour. James500 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. Public Order in UK/Commonwealth English at least refers to the prevention of violence and criminality involving large numbers of people in a place the public has access to on payment or otherwise e.g. at football matches, demonstrations and in town centres. These typically have very obvious "primary victims". Is there a way to distinguish between crimes with only secondary or indirect victims and crimes with multiple simultaneous primary victims in a public place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.16.33 (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like a completely different definition - probably a US/UK & Commonwealth thing. Any mention of public order offences in the British media at least will be related to breach of the peace and upwards - nothing to do with "victimless crime".  Someone who knows the details care to disambig?  62.196.17.197 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

My username
tubaypaul9 2409:4061:4E04:8DD0:0:0:D9C8:5007 (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)