J Crim Justice Ethics 18(2):3–10īlock W (2001) Toward a libertarian theory of blackmail. Irish Jurist 33:280–310īlock W (1999) The crime of blackmail: a libertarian critique. Washington Univ St Louis Law Rev 24:225–246īlock W (1998) A libertarian theory of blackmail: reply to Leo Katz. Libertarian Forum 1:1–4īlock W (1997) The case for decriminalizing blackmail: a reply to Lindgren and Campbell. Univ Chicago Law Rev 65:796–878īlock W (1972) The blackmailer as hero. Keywordsīerman MN (1998) The evidentiary theory of blackmail: taking motives seriously. Non-aggressive acts should not be criminalised, and our moral disapproval of blackmail, although perhaps understandable, is not a sufficient ground for administering punishment. Sometimes morals need to be changed to follow the undeniable logic of rights. Although one’s moral intuition may lead one to think that blackmail is sufficiently objectionable to be criminalised, one should still remember that so-called moral intuitions are the product of socialisation.
Blackmail should be legal because it is a non-aggressive and punishment for non-aggression is a crime in itself. From the perspective of rights, blackmail is an example of a voluntary agreement between two parties who both prefer to enter into the agreement rather than to reject it. But moral intuition cannot represent a solid foundation for a legal theory: it needs to be based on the concept of rights.
Most of them base their claim on the assertions about shared intuitions that blackmail is a moral wrong. There are various theories that seek to justify why blackmail should be illegal. In this sense, blackmail is different from extortion, which is the practice of obtaining something through the initiation of force or a threat thereof. Accepting payment for choosing to keep silent does not constitute a trespass, and therefore should be considered legitimate (although, perhaps, morally objectionable). the dissemination of information that the blackmailee prefers not to be disseminated). As such, it represents an interesting phenomenon because, the law criminalises a threat to perform an action that is not criminal in itself (e.g.
0 kommentar(er)
