[flagged]
Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)
51–60 of 102 posts
Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)
#52Having read through it I was disappointed in their decision to barely to engage with the potential solution to the paradox that would result from the development of a legal construct of “criminal coercion”, they touch on coercion a few times but don’t dig in as they’re not focused on suggesting such a thing (it’s certainly not their job to as the authors they are free to decide the remit of their paper after all) … b…
[flagged]
Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there was a man in England insert long ago who killed someone and fled. 40 years later he was found and put on trial. In his defense he argued that he wasn't the same man of 40 years ago. And could point to many many differences to prove his point. The court was quite impressed and had him hung anyways.
Hanged. Just a small nitpick probably unworthy of HN, but it might lead someone to see why I posted, and the difference.
I can't see; could you explain pls.
Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
The illegal thing about bribery is that you give money to an individual for them to do something on behalf of an organisation. Paying someone to do something isn't illegal, but you're harming the organisation by encouraging the individual to act differently than in the best interests of the organisation.
In this analogy, it is the official demanding the bribe who corresponds to a blackmailer, and that is generally a crime. In many cases, a bribe is demanded in order to have done what should be done anyway. More generally, one cannot, in practice, blackmail someone over a harmless fact. This is so even if no one but the victim regards the fact as having any importance.
For example a border officer could demand a bribe to let you into the country. In that case they are threatening not to let you in unless you pay them. But not letting you in is in fact illegal, since they have an obligation to their employer (the government) to let people in or not based on whatever criteria the government set, rather than their own interest.
So they are in fact threatening you with something illegal, unlike blackmail where they have the legal right to reveal embarrassing information about you.
Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)
#55I'll bite. Was canceling celebrities throughout the 2010s victimless?
I'm curious as to why you think this particular question is relevant to this particular discussion. I hope there is more to it than the presence of 'victimless' in the title.
Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)
#56What a pathetic straw man of a paper. It’s transparently obvious that blackmail is not a victimless crime given it’s not hard to identify who the victim is in a case of blackmail. Secondly their argument (blackmail comprises two parts each of which is legal on its own and therefore should be legal when done together) is both untrue on its face and fails given there are lots of things which are legal in isolation that…
The "paradox" stems from the fact that the victim is really a victim of the gossip. But gossiping is actually legal. So they are not really a victim of that. So what are they a victim of? From the offer to not gossip? But that offer is actually beneficial to them: it provides a way to prevent the gossip. So it's hard to say they are a victim of that. etc.
I can't say I have thought a lot about this but I wouldn't dismiss the author's point that quickly.
Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)
#57I find the argument quite ridiculous, but worse, the premise seems flawed. Contrary to the authors claim, publishing humiliating information would probably fall under defamation, which is illegal. At least in my country.
In the US, publishing true information generally cannot be defamation.
I think that you may even be legally bound to reveal certain true information that you've come across, regardless of whether that would be humiliating for someone (say, information about a corrupt politician taking bribes).
Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)
#58[dead]
Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this analogy, it is the official demanding the bribe who corresponds to a blackmailer, and that is generally a crime. In many cases, a bribe is demanded in order to have done what should be done anyway. More generally, one cannot, in practice, blackmail someone over a harmless fact. This is so even if no one but the victim regards the fact as having any importance.
For example a border officer could demand a bribe to let you into the country. In that case they are threatening not to let you in unless you pay them. But not letting you in is in fact illegal, since they have an obligation to their employer (the government) to let people in or not based on whatever criteria the government set, rather than their own interest. So they are in fact threatening you with something illega…
Point taken; your have improved your argument by basing it on the illegality of the bribe-taker's acts of omission or commission - though there is a third class of bribery (perhaps the most common of all), where the bribe-taker is legally allowed to exercise their own discretion, and in such cases, the bribe acceptance itself is the only illegal act by the bribe-taker.† This brings us right back to the central fallacy (the composition fallacy - thanks, cinq!) of the paper we are discussing.
†Such as the recent college-admissions scandal in the US. That it is illegal, in some jurisdictions, to pay a bribe, is a point in your favor against the bribery analogy.
Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)
#60Blackmail is a stupid crime, because you could basically always do it in a way that doesn’t fit the definition of the crime. The threat never has to be directly made, and the offer never has to be directly associated with it. Only the clumsiest blackmail practitioner would ever find themselves creating evidence of a blackmail crime.
Basic evidence is that the victim makes a connection between the threat and the offer. It is illegal to cause this connection. One can try plausible deniability but it's a gamble. Very smart people get convicted on circumstational evidence.
The threat is a necessary element of the crime. To convict somebody of extortion or blackmail you have to prove that the threat occurred, and that the accused intended to make the threat (which is slightly different in the case of extortion via intimidation rather than threat). Extortion is not a strict liability crime, and the interpretation you've provided doesn't account for the mens rea requirement. If your interpretation was true, then extortion or blackmail would just be a feeling that anybody could have at any time.