The older that any modern government gets, the more laws that are added to their books, of which, those laws seemingly consist of coming up with more and more actions by its citizens, that are considered to be criminal in nature, and therefore subject to sanctions and penalties by state apparatus. While a given country's criminal code, could in theory, cover every possible activity and every possible contingency that would appear to be of the nature of a crime, so committed by its citizens, wittingly or not, there actually isn't a need for that to be, for in many instances, what has been defined as a crime, is an activity that actually has no victim, unless of one's own person, such as the possession or usage of illicit contraband, gambling, suicide, or consensual prostitution, and all those other activities that adults engage in that essentially involve consent between the parties of that activity, or are individual proclivities of a given individual that is of their own volition.
Further to the point, crimes against the state and crimes against other persons should be dealt with according to the severity of those crimes against other people or the state. So that, the robbing of money from another through the act of violence, is wholly different and the penalties thereof should be higher than such an activity such as being done through sleight of hand, or through the usage of sophisticated methods of skimming money from unsuspecting parties, for in the first instance, somebody is in particular danger of being individually harmed, financially, as well as physically, in addition to psychologically; whereas, in the second instance, that physical harm is non-existent, though the harm of property being stolen is still applicable.
So then, criminal acts that involve the loss of life and limb, and/or the loss of damage to real property, should be seen as crimes, that deserve to be properly punished, for those that are physically hurt, are entitled to be made whole, to the degree that such is still possible; and those that have property stolen from them, are entitled to see that property returned to them, to the degree that such is still possible. On the other hand, transactions in which one party sells illicit drugs to another, or one person rents their body for illicit sex to another, should not be classified as criminal acts, but rather should be seen as activities that because they are consensual in nature, should therefore not be subjected to criminal penalties, for there is no personal victim.
That is to say, the crime that governments should involve themselves directly in, should be almost exclusively that crime that is harmful to the physicality of the body, or to the psychology of the mind, or that which takes property from another through deception or force. Those are crimes, worthy of state resources to prosecute; whereas, many other activities currently defined as crime, should be reclassified as something other than crime, especially all those activities that are consensual in nature, of which they are typically lacking a true victim, and often are not relevant state business. The government, as a prosecuting agent, should remove itself from the prosecution of that which may seem morally suspect, and concentrate instead of just that which harms a non-consenting innocent party, or unjustly takes from the innocent what is rightfully theirs.