There are many reasons why the state takes an interest in blackmail.
Firstly, 'blackmail' refers to any form of extortion, threats against the person and his property as well as information warfare, and the state reserves a monopoly of violence: modern states also seek to moderate the terms of contract that one citizen can impose on another - a monopoly of oppression, if you will.
That's the 'top-down' view of the enlightened dictator, and it is matched by the expectations of free citizens in a democracy. Expropriation, the threat of violence, punitive or malicious acts to destroy your reputation and private life - people don't enter freely into 'agreements' with these potential outcomes, and they expect a democratic state state to curb the power of those who seek to impose such terms.
Considering the narrow definition, the publication of embarrassing details of your private life (say, medical records) calculated to destroy your public life and family relationships, it's fair to ask: who has the prower and the right to do that? At the very least, such punitive actions should be a momopoly of the state and, if used at all, they should be dispensed by the courts.
It might surprise you to learn that the CPS will often prosecute a blackmailer and reserve charges on the victim when he's being blackmailed over fairly serious criminal offences. The reasoning is simple: blackmail is more damaging to society than a whole range of criminal acts and contractual failings.
As an extreme example, blackmail's a powerful motive to murder. Injustice is always expensive for someone, and the state has interest in its prevention because the state ends up dealing with the mess.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-14 06:13 pm (UTC)There are many reasons why the state takes an interest in blackmail.
Firstly, 'blackmail' refers to any form of extortion, threats against the person and his property as well as information warfare, and the state reserves a monopoly of violence: modern states also seek to moderate the terms of contract that one citizen can impose on another - a monopoly of oppression, if you will.
That's the 'top-down' view of the enlightened dictator, and it is matched by the expectations of free citizens in a democracy. Expropriation, the threat of violence, punitive or malicious acts to destroy your reputation and private life - people don't enter freely into 'agreements' with these potential outcomes, and they expect a democratic state state to curb the power of those who seek to impose such terms.
Considering the narrow definition, the publication of embarrassing details of your private life (say, medical records) calculated to destroy your public life and family relationships, it's fair to ask: who has the prower and the right to do that? At the very least, such punitive actions should be a momopoly of the state and, if used at all, they should be dispensed by the courts.
It might surprise you to learn that the CPS will often prosecute a blackmailer and reserve charges on the victim when he's being blackmailed over fairly serious criminal offences. The reasoning is simple: blackmail is more damaging to society than a whole range of criminal acts and contractual failings.
As an extreme example, blackmail's a powerful motive to murder. Injustice is always expensive for someone, and the state has interest in its prevention because the state ends up dealing with the mess.