There's a grey area between 'completely victimless' and 'there was an individually identifiable victim'. Some things harm an undefined number of people by harming a collective resource. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
These aren't 'half-measures', they're a recognition of nuance.
There are lots of 'victimless' crimes - speeding in your car (reckless driving), buying drugs to consume yourself (use of controlled substances), planning to murder your partner (conspiracy). The victim is either 'society' or the person committing the crime. If you commit one of these crimes you're punished for demonstrating a willingness to do what society as a whole has decided it doesn't want people to do. Whether or not that's correct is a matter for debate, but the idea of 'if there's no victim there can't be a crime' is probably nonsense. There's bound to be at least one or two victimless crimes you think should actually be criminal.
Both can absolutely be victimless. I would argue that the biggest reason they aren't victimless more often is because they're both crimes in most countries.
reply