![]() First, it considers the suggestion, made by a variety of criminal law scholars, that consent has the power to transform illegal conduct (whether a theft, a rape, or an assault) into legal conduct (a gift, lovemaking, or a handshake, respectively). This contribution to Cardozo Law School's symposium on George Fletcher's "Grammar of Criminal Law" considers three ways in which the concept of consent helps to define the law of theft. Keywords: Cybercrime, Extortion, Speech, Threats, Violence, Discrimination, Ransomware The article concludes with recommendations for effectively addressing the phenomenon. The analysis was done on a large number of cases and provides a comprehensive description of the essential characteristics of the phenomenon, including forms, communication vectors, and consequences for victims. The approach is interdisciplinary and empirically-informed. This research aims to provide an in-depth examination of the cyber threats and extortion phenomenon. ![]() A deep analysis of the nature and extent of cyber extortion and threat is an essential component in the design of control strategies and programs. The scale, scope, and challenges posed by this criminal phenomenon cannot be overstated. ![]() The victimization is linked to personal insecurity or disruption, mental and physical health, work or school performance, may represent a high financial burden, affecting negatively the sustainable development in a number of ways. The phenomenon includes a wide range of forms, such as intimate partner violence violence against women dating abuse sexual harassment sexual coercion and extortion etc. This approach does not produce a blanket exoneration it tells us that the aptness of describing a strike as extortionate depends on a prior appraisal of the conditions that the strikers work under, and the fairness with which they are treated.Ĭyber threats and extortionate communications usually aim to influence the behavior or obtain compliance from victims. The third and most promising strategy says that an employer’s claim to the productive labour of workers is conditional upon his/her not exploiting them. The second says that work-stoppages cannot be extortionate because, by themselves, they cannot put an employer under duress. The first says that work-stoppages can only be extortionate if they infringe an employer’s rightful claim to productive labour, but that no employer has any such claim under capitalism. The paper provides an analytical reconstruction of this objection, before presenting and interrogating different strategies for countering it. Workers who go on strike are sometimes accused of holding their employer “to ransom”, the implication being that strike action is a kind of extortion. The second step is to say that a threat to engage in putatively lawful conduct should be regarded as "wrongful" for purposes of extortion law if and only if such conduct turns out - on further analysis of the relevant governing law, such as the law concerning what constitutes an illegal lawsuit, strike, or employment decision - in fact to be unlawful. The first is to conceptualize extortion as theft by coercion: when X "wrongfully" threatens to commit some act unless V pays X's demand, X "steals" from V by charging him money for something for which he has no right to charge him. To that end, the article offers a two-step analysis. Even if it is not possible to say which threats to do what is putatively lawful should be treated as a crime generally, it should still be possible to say which, if any, such threats should be treated specifically as extortion. It then pursues a theoretically more modest, but doctrinally significant, project. There are many circumstances in which X's threat to do some unwanted but nevertheless lawful act to V unless V pays up will be viewed as nothing more than "hard bargaining." After a brief review of the literature on the blackmail paradox, the article contends that no conceptually adequate test has been developed for distinguishing between those threats to do what is putatively lawful that should be treated as a crime and those that should not. expose embarrassing information about you, file a lawsuit against you, order my union to strike your factory, not hire you for this job," etc.), the problem is more complicated. But when the act threatened is putatively lawful (e.g., "pay me $10,000 or I'll. Under what circumstances should it be a crime for X to threaten to do some unwanted act to V unless V pays X money to forgo it? When the threatened act is itself unlawful (e.g., "pay me $10,000 or I'll break your knees"), criminalization is uncontroversial.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |