Most laws around the world do not represent what most people consider appropriate. Laws generally reflect what is considered appropriate in accordance with an antiquated body of thought, such as a religion. Most people, especially young people, experience laws merely as a traditional set of repressive rules.
Most young people, and many older ones, cannot even imagine—or dare not imagine—a world in which they are free to do what they want, as long as the involvement of other people is consensual.
The use of many recreational drugs other than alcohol is strictly illegal in the US, even though the act of consumption does not directly involve other people. In the US, which likes to call itself the “land of the free,” an adult citizen is not entirely free to do with their own body as they please. While some people may need guidance, there is little point in criminalizing the wish of a person nearing the end of their life to have opiates provide an amount of comfort and pleasure that would otherwise not be attainable.
Under many circumstances, adult men and women are also not allowed to engage in certain consensual sexual transactions. Prostitution, for example, is illegal in most parts of the US. Legal punishments include jail sentences, fines, and the confiscation of property, while encounters with law enforcement can also involve harsh treatment.
Many people in most countries would welcome far-reaching legal reform.
The first principle of a new, enlightened legal system would be that where there is no complaint from a victim or their family, the state has no right to intervene.
The second new principle of justice would be that if a court has determined the guilt of a perpetrator, the victim and the perpetrator should be allowed to work out adequate compensation. Only if the victim and the perpetrator do not reach a solution in this way shall the state mete out a punishment.
Critics might argue that the option of an agreement between the victim and the perpetrator would result in leniency toward wealthy people, but in this theoretical model, perpetrators may stand to lose a large part of their wealth to avoid jail. Furthermore, a poor victim who receives substantial financial compensation for being harmed by a wealthy perpetrator may be better served by this redress than by the perpetrator simply serving a five-year prison sentence.