Blackmail: A Crime of Paradox and Irony
Chapter
First Online:
- 1 Mentions
- 263 Downloads
Abstract
Legal scholars have tended to focus upon whether blackmail is paradoxical rather than upon its substance. In actuality, federal and state blackmail laws vary considerably in their elements and defenses. After defining what I mean by blackmail, I discuss how jurisdictions frame prohibitions against blackmail in relation to prohibitions against theft, larceny, extortion, threats, coercion and intimidation; how extensively jurisdictions elect to prohibit blackmail; what, if anything, jurisdictions regard as defenses to blackmail; and how harshly or mildly jurisdictions penalize blackmail. I conclude by discussing the paradox of blackmail, including recent scholarly efforts by philosophers and legal scholars to resolve it.
References
Statutes
- 11 Del. Code § 846 (2017).Google Scholar
- 13 Vt. Stat. § 1701 (2017).Google Scholar
- 13 Vt. Stat. § 2651 (2017).Google Scholar
- 17-A Me. Rev. Stat. § 355(2)(B) (2017).Google Scholar
- 18 Pa. Comp. Stat. § 2906 (2017).Google Scholar
- 18 Pa. Comp. Stat. § 3921 (2017).Google Scholar
- 18 Pa. Comp. Stat. § 3922 (2017).Google Scholar
- 18 Pa. Comp. Stat. § 3923 (2017).Google Scholar
- 18 U.S.C. § 3363 (2017).Google Scholar
- 18 U.S.C. § 3364 (2017).Google Scholar
- 18 U.S.C. § 873 (2017).Google Scholar
- 19 Del. Code § 792 (2017).Google Scholar
- 21 Okla. Stat. § 1488 (2017).Google Scholar
- 43 Eliz.. ch.13, § 2.Google Scholar
- Alaska Stat. § 11.41.520(a) (2017).Google Scholar
- Alaska Stat. § 11.41.530(b) (2017).Google Scholar
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1804 (2017).Google Scholar
- Ark. Code § 5-13-208(a)(5) (2017).Google Scholar
- Ark. Code § 5-36-101(11)(B) (2017).Google Scholar
- Ark. Code § 5-36-102 (2017).Google Scholar
- Burns Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(d) (2017).Google Scholar
- Calif. Gov. Code § 8313 (2017).Google Scholar
- Calif. Pen. Code § 484 (2017).Google Scholar
- Calif. Pen. Code § 518 (2017).Google Scholar
- Calif. Pen. Code § 519 (2017).Google Scholar
- Code of Ala. § 13A-4-2 (2017).Google Scholar
- Code of Ala. § 13A-6-25 (2017).Google Scholar
- Code of Ala. § 13A-8-1(14)(f) (2017).Google Scholar
- Code of Ala. §§ 13A-8-15 (2017).Google Scholar
- Code of Ala. § 13A-8-13 (2017).Google Scholar
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-119(5) (2017).Google Scholar
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-192 (2017).Google Scholar
- D.C. Code § 22-3251 (2017).Google Scholar
- D.C. Code § 22-3252 (2017).Google Scholar
- Fla. Stat. § 836.05 (2017).Google Scholar
- Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 707-764 (2017).Google Scholar
- Hodges v. Gibson Prods. Co., 811 P.2d 151 (Utah 1991).Google Scholar
- In re Stanley E., 81 Cal. App. 3d 415 (1978).Google Scholar
- Iowa Code. § 711.4 (2017).Google Scholar
- Kan. Stat. § 21-5428 (2017).Google Scholar
- Ky. Rev. Stat.. § 514.080(2).Google Scholar
- Ky. Rev. Stat. § 509.080(2) (2017).Google Scholar
- La. Rev. Stat. § 14-66(A) (2017).Google Scholar
- Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. Sup. Ct., 1998).Google Scholar
- Landry v. Daley, 280 F. Supp. 938 (S.D. Ill., 1968), rev’d on other grounds sub nom Boyle v. Landry, 401 U.S. 77 (1969).Google Scholar
- Larceny Act of 1861, § 44 (Eng.).Google Scholar
- Libel Act of 1843, § 3 (Eng.).Google Scholar
- Mass. Gen. L. ch. 265, § 25 (2017).Google Scholar
- Mich. Comp. L. § 750.213 (2017).Google Scholar
- Miss. Code § 97-3-82(2) (2017).Google Scholar
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.010 (2017).Google Scholar
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.030 (2017).Google Scholar
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 588.011(6) (2017).Google Scholar
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-118 (2017).Google Scholar
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.23(c) (2017).Google Scholar
- N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-17-06 (2017).Google Scholar
- N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-23-10(12) (2017).Google Scholar
- N.J. Stat. § 2C:20-5 (2017).Google Scholar
- Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.320(3) (2017).Google Scholar
- New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).Google Scholar
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.05(A) (2017a).Google Scholar
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2905.11 (2017).Google Scholar
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2905.12 (2017b).Google Scholar
- Ore. Rev. Stat. § 164.075(1)(f) (2017).Google Scholar
- People v. Bollaert, 248 Cal. App. 4th 699 (2016).Google Scholar
- People v. Umana, 138 Cal. App. 4th 625 (2006).Google Scholar
- Prezioso v. Thomas, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 7740 (4th Cir.).Google Scholar
- R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-42-2 (2017).Google Scholar
- Rev. Code of Wash. § 9A.56.120 (2017).Google Scholar
- S.C. Code § 16-17-640 (2017).Google Scholar
- State v. Gile, 2014 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 209.Google Scholar
- State v. Haugen, 392 NW2d 799 (N.D. Sup. Ct., 1986).Google Scholar
- State v. Pauling, 108 Wash. App. 445 (2001), rev’d on other grounds, 149 Wn. 2d 1001 (2002).Google Scholar
- State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Ore. Sup. Ct., 1982).Google Scholar
- State v. Strong, 167 Wash. App. 206 (Ct. App., 2012).Google Scholar
- Tenn. Code § 39-14-112(b) (2017).Google Scholar
- Tex. Pen. Code § 31.03 (2017).Google Scholar
- U.S. v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2014).Google Scholar
- United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1988), rev’d on other grounds, 196 F.3d 383 (2d Cir., 1999).Google Scholar
- Vafaie v. Owens, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 557.Google Scholar
- W. Va. Code § 61-2-13 (2017).Google Scholar
- Whimbush v. People, 869 P.2d 1245 (Colo. Sup. Ct. 1994).Google Scholar
- Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-402 (2017).Google Scholar
- American Law Institute. 1962. Model penal code. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.Google Scholar
- ———. 1965. Restatement (Second) of torts. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.Google Scholar
- ———. 1980. Model penal code and commentaries. Pt. 2, Vol. 2. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.Google Scholar
- Annotation. 2017. Truth a defense to state charge of criminal intimidation, extortion, blackmail, threats, and the like, based upon threats to disclose information about a victim. American Law Reports 4th 39:1011.Google Scholar
- Associated Press. 2007. More victims possible in L.I. sex blackmail case. Feb. 2.Google Scholar
- Berman, Mitchell. 1998. The evidentiary theory of blackmail. The University of Chicago Law Review 65: 795–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ———. 2006. Meta-blackmail and the evidentiary theory: Still taking motives seriously. Georgetown Law Journal 94: 787–812.Google Scholar
- ———. 2011. Blackmail. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of criminal law, ed. John Deigh and David Dolinko, 37–105. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Block, Walter, and Gary Anderson. 2001. Blackmail, extortion, and exchange. New York Law School Law Review 44: 541–561.Google Scholar
- Block, Walter, and David Gordon. 1985. Blackmail, extortion and free speech. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 19: 37–54.Google Scholar
- Cavanaugh, Thomas. 1997. Aquinas’s account of double effect. The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 61: 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Christopher, Russell. 2006. Meta-blackmail. Georgetown Law Journal 94: 739–786.Google Scholar
- Elhauge, Einer. 2016. Contrived threats and uncontrived warnings: A general solution to the puzzles of contractual duress, unconstitutional conditions, and blackmail. The University of Chicago Law Review 83: 503–584.Google Scholar
- Feinberg, Joel. 1988. Harmless wrongdoing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Fletcher, George. 1993. Blackmail: The paradigmatic crime. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141: 1617–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ginsburg, Douglas H., and Paul Shechtman. 1993. Blackmail: An economic analysis of the law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141: 1849–1876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gordon, Wendy. 1993. Truth and consequences: The force of blackmail’s central case. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141: 1741–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Helmholz, R.H. 2001. The Roman law of blackmail. The Journal of Legal Studies 30: 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kamm, Francis. 2004. Failures of just war theory. Ethics 114: 650–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Katz, Leo. 1993. Blackmail and other forms of arm-twisting. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141: 1567–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lamond, Grant. 1996. Coercion, threats, and the puzzle of blackmail. In Harm and culpability, ed. A.P. Simester and A.T.J. Smith, 214–238. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Levy, Ken. 2007. The solution to the real blackmail paradox. Connecticut Law Review 39: 1051–1096.Google Scholar
- Lindgren, James. 1984. Unraveling the paradox of blackmail. Columbia Law Review 84: 670–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ———. 1993. Blackmail: An afterword. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141: 1975–1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mackay, Charles. 1888. A dictionary of lowland scotch. Edinburgh: Ballantyne Press.Google Scholar
- McMahan, Jeff. 1994. Revising the doctrine of double effect. Journal of Applied Philosophy 11: 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McLaren, Angus. 2002. Sexual blackmail: A modern history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Mish, Frederick, ed. 1997. Merriam Webster’s collegiate dictionary. 10th ed. Springfield: Merriam Webster.Google Scholar
- Note. 1993. The truth will not set you free in Nebraska. Nebraska Law Review 72: 1236–1274.Google Scholar
- Overland, Gerhard. 2014. Moral obstacles: An alternative to the doctrine of double effect. Ethics 124: 481–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Oxford English Dictionary. n.d. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Posner, Richard. 1993. Blackmail, privacy, and freedom of contract. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141: 1817–1848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Prosser, William. 1960. Privacy. California Law Review 48: 383–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Revenge porn laws by state. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/revenge-porn-laws-by-state.html
- Rivlin, Ram. 2015. Blackmail, subjectivity and culpability. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 28: 399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Robinson, Martin. 2013. Ex-boyfriend of Tamara Ecclestone found guilty of £200,000 blackmail plot to reveal her “intimate secrets.” Daily Mail, February 25. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284229/Derek-Rose-ex-boyfriend-Tamara-Ecclestone-guilty-200-000-blackmail-plot.html
- Robinson, Paul, Michael Cahill, and Daniel Bartels. 2010. Competing theories of blackmail. Texas Law Review 89: 291–352.Google Scholar
- Sachs, Stephen. 2006. Saving Toby: Extortion, blackmail, and the right to destroy. Yale Law & Policy Review 24: 251–261.Google Scholar
- Shaw, James. 2012. The morality of blackmail. Philosophy and Public Affairs 40: 165–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- The Guardian. 2009. David Letterman foils $2 m sex blackmail plot. October. 2.Google Scholar
- Westen, Peter. 2012. Why the paradox of blackmail is so hard to resolve. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 9: 585–636.Google Scholar
- ———. 2018. Critical Commentary. University of Michigan. http://www.umich.edu/~pkw/criticalcommentary
- Yehudai, Chen. 2009. Information blackmail: Survived by technicality? Marquette Law Review 92: 779–828.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© The Author(s) 2019