首页> 外文期刊>Criminal Law and Philosophy >A Political Theory of Blackmail: A Reply to Professor Dripps
【24h】

A Political Theory of Blackmail: A Reply to Professor Dripps

机译:勒索的政治理论:对Dripps教授的回应

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

This essay was originally presented at the Rutgers Institute for Law and Philosophy as part of the Symposium on The Evolution of Criminal Law Theory. It is a Reply to Professor Donald Dripps’ politically-based justification for blackmail’s prohibition. Under Dripps’ account, by exacting payment from the victim blackmail is an impermissible form of private punishment that usurps the state’s public monopoly on law enforcement. This essay demonstrates that Dripps’ account is either under-inclusive or over-inclusive or both. Dripps’ account is applied to a number of the standard blackmail scenarios by which theories of blackmail are typically assessed. Dripps’ account is under-inclusive by failing to treat as blackmail Victim-Welcomed Blackmail, Non-Monetary Blackmail, Rebuffed Blackmail, and Non-Informational Blackmail which the law considers as blackmail. And it is over-inclusive by treating as blackmail Victim-Initiated Exchange and Unconditional Disclosure which the law does not recognize as blackmail.
机译:这篇文章最初是在罗格斯法律和哲学研究所作为《刑法理论的演变》研讨会的一部分提出的。这是对唐纳德·德里普斯(Donald Dripps)教授基于政治依据的勒索禁令的回应。在Dripps的交代下,通过从受害者勒索中收取报酬是一种不允许的私人惩罚形式,它篡改了该州对执法的公共垄断。本文证明了Dripps的帐户要么包含不足,要么包含过多,或者两者兼而有之。 Dripps的帐户适用于许多标准勒索方案,通常通过这些方案来评估勒索理论。 Dripps的帐户包含的内容太少,因为未能将其视为法律认为是勒索的勒索受害人欢迎勒索,非金钱勒索,拒绝勒索和非信息勒索。而且,通过将法律不承认为勒索的受害人发起的交换和无条件披露视为勒索,这是过度包容的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号