The following passages are adapted from articles recently published in North American law review journals.
Topic
The legal reasoning behind why blackmail is (or isn't) considered a crime in different legal traditions.
Framework
Present Debate (two approaches to blackmail: North American law grapples with a "paradox," while Roman law frames blackmail differently)
Main Point
Passage A: Blackmail is paradoxical in North American law because it combines two legal actions into an illegal one, but its criminality can be justified by the misuse of third-party leverage. *(Most valuable sentences: , and )* Passage B: Roman law avoided the blackmail paradox by valuing whether actions caused harm, not just their legality, and placed the burden on the possessor of shameful information to justify disclosure, even if the information was true.
P1A: Blackmail Paradox Introduced
Both the U.S. and Canadian laws find blackmail odd because it criminalizes two actions (asking for money and threatening to disclose information) that are each legal on their own, raising the question: why is their combination illegal?
P2A: Problems Without a Theory
Because legal theory hasn't satisfactorily explained blackmail, laws are overly broad and rely on prosecutors to use discretion in enforcement.
P3A: Author’s Solution: Third-Party Leverage
The real issue with blackmail is its “triangular” structure—the blackmailer uses a threat of outside harm (like state prosecution or public shame) as leverage, which is why it should be criminalized.