Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: State of the Union

For as long as I can remember, people have been saying that "people don't read books anymore". Obviously, this is an exaggeration, but with the rise of the internet, it's a safe bet that reading is on the decline (and before there was internet, television was to blame). My point here is that it is much more rare today for someone to read a book that will change their life. Therefore, I feel fortunate to have found Peter McWilliam's Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Society.

I came across this book in a used book store in Ann Arbor. I was looking around the place with my (now ex-)girlfriend, and started looking at the section on law books. I will be starting law school in less than a month (from now), and I was interested in seeing what I was getting in to. This book stood out; I found the hardcover version, which has a very colorful dust jacket, depicting a few Renaissance-era paintings. The title caught my attention; I had never heard the term "consensual crime" before, but I was familiar enough with the idea, and I agreed that consensual crimes were harmful. Since the book was used, and therefore, offered at a discount price, I bought it. Let's begin by saying that even though I agreed with the title, I had no idea what information I didn't have.

McWilliams gives a solid definition of "consensual crime": an act that one or more consenting adults (this is important) enter into that does not harm the person or property of a non-consenting party. The fact that children aren't included means that if pornography were to lose any sanctions, child pornography would remain illegal, since children cannot give consent. Throughout the course of the book, McWilliams makes arguments against consensual crimes that appeal to people on both sides of the political spectrum. Human rights violations appeal to the bleeding heart liberals while arguments about how consensual crimes impede business (McWilliams makes some incredible points about how gambling and prostitution would help the economy) are targeted towards money-minded conservatives (note: I am poking fun at the political stereotypes that McWilliams also tends to lampoon in the book). He also traces the roots of laws against consensual crimes, which are based on religion (which he uses the Bible to refute) and racism.

I will expand on the above ideas in a moment, but I would first like to point out one of the most interesting aspects of the book (which, amazingly, has nothing to do with the consensual crime laws themselves). When I wrote about Recount, I noted that it wasn't something that I'd normally write about, since it was not an other world. It was our world. Ain't Nobody's Business also takes place in our world, but it was published in 1996. At the end of the book is a chart that lists all 50 states and shows what is illegal in each state (it looks at hetero and homosexual oral and anal sex, assisted suicide, fornication, cohabitation and adultery). I immediately looked at the chart before reading anything else in the book to see how my home state of Illinois, as well as New York and California (two states I can see myself moving to some day) compared to other states (these three states are some of the most lax about consensual crimes, so awesome!). One thing I noticed was the fact that there was a distinction between straight and gay sex acts (oral sex between straight people may be legal in a given state, but illegal in the same state if done by a homosexual couple). This caught my eye, because I knew that the Lawrence v. Texas case of 2002 struck down all sodomy laws, meaning that there are no longer laws that prohibit the aforementioned sex acts, and do not discriminate against gay couples (at least not on the surface). Knowing this, I thought that they book would be interesting, but outdated. As it turns out, this was nearly the only thing out of date in the book. It was almost terrifying how little things have changed in 12 years.

McWilliams examines both obvious (drugs) and more obscure (non-traditional religious beliefs) consensual crimes, and he is careful to point out that there is a difference between something being negative for the body and something being illegal. A point he continuously stresses is that drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, are not exactly good for the body, but if someone chooses to use them, it should be their choice, provided they don't harm the person or property of another in the process. If this book had been written after the release of the film Minority Report (yes, I'm very aware that it was a story by Phillip K. Dick, but McWilliams used lots of film quotes in the book; he has definitely read a lot, but I don't know how much sci-fi he has read), he could have made a joke about how a common reason given for criminalizing drugs is similar to the idea of pre-crime. People are afraid that people will get hopped up on drugs and commit crimes. To prevent this, we outlaw the substance. But people commit crimes while drunk, and yet alcohol is perfectly legal. Speaking of which, he often points to Prohibition as an example of the worst-case scenario of making a consensual act a crime. Organized crime was a result and people had to drink dangerous liquors, since there was no regulations regarding the purity or proof of the alcohol. He uses a lot of history in the book, tracing the roots of drug laws to racism (opium was criminalized as a way to make life difficult for Chinese immigrants in the 19th century), religion (moralizers like Jerry Falwell make sure that drugs stay illegal, though these people are more concerned with pornography and sodomy) and business decisions (marijuana was hurt because William Randolph Hearst didn't want wood-based paper to go out of business due to competition from hemp-based paper).

McWilliams points out that consensual crimes not only divert police attention from dangerous criminals and hurt people who enter into an activity under their own free will, but keeping activities illegal hurts the economy. When people pay for these goods and services, the money is not taxable (who's going to declare their earnings from prostitution?!), and prices are driven up. If these things were legal, the federal government could work towards eliminating the national debt (though, one must remember that this was published in 1996, before the present... situation).

The book is divided into different sections, and one deals exclusively with the Bible. He criticizes extremist evangelists and challenges the idea that they've ever actually read the book they use to condemn anyone who doesn't think like them. After a while, the section drags on a little, but the information presented in it is extremely useful and enlightening.

The book did raise a few questions for me, mostly in the area of traffic laws. Most traffic laws, such as speed limits, aren't arrestable offenses, but they are still activities that may be considered "consensual crimes". He doesn't address these ever, but I would wonder if opponents of McWilliams could try to discredit him by saying that by his logic, we should abolish traffic laws. The law that he did mention was drunk driving; even though a drunk driver isn't guaranteed to injure someone else, he reasons that the risk is too great to remove the drunk driving laws. To a practical person (I hope), this seems like a good idea, but I wouldn't put it past people to claim that the same logic holds true for drug laws. Unfortunately, this is an extremely complicated debate that probably won't be solved by a single book, no matter how good it is.

Up next: Have a Ball...