[Hopple]

Say you see someone famous commit a crime, nothing major but it'd hurt their career if they got a criminal record - say they were one of the looters last summer and you recorded them breaking into and then coming back out of a shop with some jewellery (you can come up with your own story if you don't like this one). You, being a poor student short of cash (why else were you out that night? ), decide to ask them for money in return for not releasing the video to the media - for whatever reason nobody else saw them, or maybe you're not the only blackmailer.

Apparently this would be illegal, and you can see why. However, failing to report a crime is not illegal. Also, it is legal to have out of court settlements. Why is this the case? Either all crimes are reported and dealt with by the police and courts, or we let witnesses decide for themselves whether or not to report, and let them be swayed by money.

[inadilemma]

Because it's a form of psychological harassment.

Making settlements outside of court is different to blackmailing someone. Making a settlement outside of court is for when you can settle your differences without the interference of a judge and jury. If you saw a crime being committed and did not report it, wouldn't that be perverting the course of justice?

[Rascacielos]

Blackmail is illegal because it doesn't just apply to situations where the victim of blackmail is actually in the wrong him or herself.

[siwelmail]

If you see something, and turn a blind eye, you never saw it happen.

Therefore it is not illegal to report something you didn't see.

[najinaji]

Perversion of the course of justice? You know certainly that the person committed the crime and are using it to benefit yourself rather than the victim of their crime.

[Hopple]

(Original post by inadilemma)
Because it's a form of psychological harassment.

Making settlements outside of court is different to blackmailing someone. Making a settlement outside of court is for when you can settle your differences without the interference of a judge and jury. If you saw a crime being committed and did not report it, wouldn't that be perverting the cause of justice?

You're allowed to not report a crime. Also, you're allowed to not press charges.

(Original post by Rascacielos)
Blackmail is illegal because it doesn't just apply to situations where the victim of blackmail is actually in the wrong him or herself.

Well, there's slander/libel for that, isn't there? If you don't think that covers it, would you be ok with blackmail against a criminal for their crime?

(Original post by siwelmail)
If you see something, and turn a blind eye, you never saw it happen.

Therefore it is not illegal to [not?] report something you didn't see.

That doesn't address blackmail though

(Original post by najinaji)
Perversion of the course of justice? You know certainly that the person committed the crime and are using it to benefit yourself rather than the victim of their crime.

But you aren't obligated to report the crime anyway, why not?

[inadilemma]

(Original post by Hopple)
You're allowed to not report a crime. Also, you're allowed to not press charges.

Yes, but there's a difference between not reporting a crime, and benefiting financially from the crime by exploiting someone's fear.

[uxa595]

Not quite on topic but i think it's fair that you don't have to report a crime and having to press charges would be a retarded idea.
I also think blackmail is fair in this sort of situation.

If someone sucker punches you and you have proof but don't want to be a major dick about it, blackmail them...

[BeanofJelly]

A law preventing you from not reporting a crime could never be enforced - how could you really tell whether someone knew about the crime or not?
Compulsory spying and reporting (eg: its criminal if you don't) is also a little disapproved of nowadays...
Generally we don't make actions which are passive, eg "not" doing something, "not" reporting a crime illegal...

But blackmail is different. In order to blackmail, you definitely know there is a crime, you don't just mind your own business but actively seek to profit from the crime. Blackmail is active, not passive. It also involves harassment/threatening, even though the person you are blackmailing may be a criminal, this behaviour is still wrong.

[Hopple]

(Original post by inadilemma)
Yes, but there's a difference between not reporting a crime, and benefiting financially from the crime by exploiting someone's fear.

The criminal could always go and turn themselves in, surely that's the right thing to do. Is the issue the profit making? Plenty of advertisements seek to instill varying degrees of fear in the audience - from having white marks on your clothes to losing your baby in a car crash.

(Original post by uxa595)
Not quite on topic but i think it's fair that you don't have to report a crime and having to press charges would be a retarded idea.
I also think blackmail is fair in this sort of situation.

If someone sucker punches you and you have proof but don't want to be a major dick about it, blackmail them...

Oh, that is very on topic At least you've consolidated the inconsistencies that I outlined in the law.

(Original post by BeanofJelly)
A law preventing you from not reporting a crime could never be enforced - how could you really tell whether someone knew about the crime or not?
Compulsory spying and reporting (eg: its criminal if you don't) is also a little disapproved of nowadays...
Generally we don't make actions which are passive, eg "not" doing something, "not" reporting a crime illegal...

Would you say the same for a serious crime? You were looking out of your window into an alley and saw somebody get murdered, but didn't call the police? Whilst it isn't a crime to not report something, the police can put you down as an accomplice if they knew you were there and definitely knew you had to have known what was going on.

But blackmail is different. In order to blackmail, you definitely know there is a crime, you don't just mind your own business but actively seek to profit from the crime. Blackmail is active, not passive. It also involves harassment/threatening, even though the person you are blackmailing may be a criminal, this behaviour is still wrong.

Harassment and threats happen any time anyone owes someone else money. Heck, it happens legally even if you don't owe any money, as any student will know if they've been contacted by the TV license company. You get final warnings and demands from utility companies, credit cards, landlords etc (not all of those from personal experience ) with the threat of disconnection, court action and eviction.

[Martyn*]

It's illegal for us, but not for those higher up the chain of command.

[inadilemma]

(Original post by Hopple)
The criminal could always go and turn themselves in, surely that's the right thing to do. Is the issue the profit making? Plenty of advertisements seek to instill varying degrees of fear in the audience - from having white marks on your clothes to losing your baby in a car crash.

Making an advert about white marks on your clothes isn't coercing someone into buying a product. It's just advertising. It might make someone want to buy a product, but it's not forcing them to. As for the baby thing, that is about safety. Entirely different. It is not harassment. Blackmailing is harassment. It is psychologically damaging.

Yes, it is the right thing to do for a criminal to turn themselves in, but that's unlikely to happen in most cases.

[Hopple]

(Original post by inadilemma)
Making an advert about white marks on your clothes isn't coercing someone into buying a product. It's just advertising. It might make someone want to buy a product, but it's not forcing them to. As for the baby thing, that is about safety. Entirely different. It is not harassment. Blackmailing is harassment. It is psychologically damaging.

Yes, it is the right thing to do for a criminal to turn themselves in, but that's unlikely to happen in most cases.

What is force? It's not under threat of death, it's up to them to decide as a free choice - money or deserved infamy. Would you be okay with it if it was a one-time offer?

[inadilemma]

(Original post by Hopple)
What is force? It's not under threat of death, it's up to them to decide as a free choice - money or deserved infamy. Would you be okay with it if it was a one-time offer?

Making money through business is not the same as making money through threats. I don't see what's so hard to understand here?

Here's a definition of coercion:

co·er·cion
   [koh-ur-shuhn]
noun
1.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

Definition of blackmail:

black·mail
   [blak-meyl]

noun
1.
any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations.

2.
the extortion of such payment: He confessed rather than suffer the dishonor of blackmail.

3.
a tribute formerly exacted in the north of England and in Scotland by freebooting chiefs for protection from pillage.

verb (used with object)
4.
to extort money from (a person) by the use of threats.

5.
to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.: The strikers claimed they were blackmailed into signing the new contract.

[Hopple]

(Original post by inadilemma)
Making money through business is not the same as making money through threats. I don't see what's so hard to understand here?

Here's a definition of coercion:



Definition of blackmail:

Then we can go back to out of court settlements "Gimme cash or I take you to court". The difference here is that the company at fault will usually pre-empt this and offer to pay off their victim, is that okay? Is it blackmail if the criminal knows they've been filmed and tries to pay off the witness?

[inadilemma]

(Original post by Hopple)
Then we can go back to out of court settlements "Gimme cash or I take you to court". The difference here is that the company at fault will usually pre-empt this and offer to pay off their victim, is that okay? Is it blackmail if the criminal knows they've been filmed and tries to pay off the witness?

In that case, both parties have agreed on a cash settlement to avoid the unpleasantness of a court case.

In the case of someone finding out about a crime and blackmailing the person who committed it, there is no mutual agreement. There's just threat.

It depends what kind of crime you're talking about. If it's against the state e.g. a murder, there will be no way there can be a cash settlement. That's only applicable when the case is against individuals/groups e.g. fraud, sexual assault.

I suppose if you want to look at that as either blackmail or bribery, it could be seen as a loop in the system, but should in no way mean that blackmail itself should not be seen as illegal.

[Arceus]

(Original post by Hopple)
Say you see someone famous commit a crime, nothing major but it'd hurt their career if they got a criminal record - say they were one of the looters last summer and you recorded them breaking into and then coming back out of a shop with some jewellery (you can come up with your own story if you don't like this one). You, being a poor student short of cash (why else were you out that night? ), decide to ask them for money in return for not releasing the video to the media - for whatever reason nobody else saw them, or maybe you're not the only blackmailer.

Apparently this would be illegal, and you can see why. However, failing to report a crime is not illegal. Also, it is legal to have out of court settlements. Why is this the case? Either all crimes are reported and dealt with by the police and courts, or we let witnesses decide for themselves whether or not to report, and let them be swayed by money.

..............

[Hopple]

(Original post by inadilemma)
In that case, both parties have agreed on a cash settlement to avoid the unpleasantness of a court case.

In the case of someone finding out about a crime and blackmailing the person who committed it, there is no mutual agreement. There's just threat.

There is a mutual agreement? One says "If you give me money I won't show this to the police" and the other goes "Ok, I agree, here's the money".

It depends what kind of crime you're talking about. If it's against the state e.g. a murder, there will be no way there can be a cash settlement. That's only applicable when the case is against individuals/groups e.g. fraud, sexual assault.

I suppose if you want to look at that as either blackmail or bribery, it could be seen as a loop in the system, but should in no way mean that blackmail itself should not be seen as illegal.

What specific part of blackmail do you take issue with? There's intimidation, which many companies do legally, and even the government. There's making profit, which everyone aims to do. There's not reporting a crime, which is apparently legal. I don't see any difference morally between filming someone commit a crime and saying "I recorded that, now I'm going to report you to the police", the criminal saying "Please don't, I'll give you a bajillion quid" then the filmer saying "Ok then", and the filmer opening with "I recorded that, now I'm going to report you to the police unless you give me a bajillion quid" then the criminal going "Ok then". And from there, there isn't much of a jump to out of court settlements.

[inadilemma]

(Original post by Hopple)
There is a mutual agreement? One says "If you give me money I won't show this to the police" and the other goes "Ok, I agree, here's the money".

Not necessarily the case. What you're talking about is blackmail. But if we're talking about law suits involving groups and/or individuals, the courts are there to decide which party is in the right and how much compensation, if any, needs to be given. If the parties feel they can settle the case themselves, without assistance from the court, then the court has no business there. That has nothing to do with someone committing a gross offense such as fraud/murder/rape/theft. E.g. a case involving a man who refused to pay back a loan to his friend would be called, for example, 'Smith v Jones', whereas, a murder case, for example, of O.J Simpson would be called 'People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson'. There is no way to 'drop the charges' against someone up for a capital crime.

What specific part of blackmail do you take issue with? There's intimidation, which many companies do legally, and even the government. There's making profit, which everyone aims to do. There's not reporting a crime, which is apparently legal. I don't see any difference morally between filming someone commit a crime and saying "I recorded that, now I'm going to report you to the police", the criminal saying "Please don't, I'll give you a bajillion quid" then the filmer saying "Ok then", and the filmer opening with "I recorded that, now I'm going to report you to the police unless you give me a bajillion quid" then the criminal going "Ok then". And from there, there isn't much of a jump to out of court settlements.

First bolded bit is bribery not blackmail and in both cases, the person who filmed would be in the wrong for perverting the course of justice.

[Hopple]

(Original post by inadilemma)
Not necessarily the case. What you're talking about is blackmail. But if we're talking about law suits involving groups and/or individuals, the courts are there to decide which party is in the right and how much compensation, if any, needs to be given. If the parties feel they can settle the case themselves, without assistance from the court, then the court has no business there. That has nothing to do with someone committing a gross offense such as fraud/murder/rape/theft. E.g. a case involving a man who refused to pay back a loan to his friend would be called, for example, 'Smith v Jones', whereas, a murder case, for example, of O.J Simpson would be called 'People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson'. There is no way to 'drop the charges' against someone up for a capital crime.

But why is it illegal? Comparing lawsuits to theft/fraud, what makes them so different that the perpetrator/criminal is allowed to pay off the victim?

First bolded bit is bribery not blackmail and in both cases, the person who filmed would be in the wrong for perverting the course of justice.

By "in the wrong", do you mean "committing a crime"? Of course I see blackmail as morally wrong, no need to convicne me of that However, how would you compare those two situations with the one where the filmer decides to do nothing with the evidence, despite appeals for help from the police investigating? What if they held out in the hope that the police also offered a financial reward for any evidence?