A Political Theory of Blackmail: A Reply to Professor Dripps

9 Pages Posted: 12 Mar 2009 Last revised: 22 Mar 2009

Date Written: March 11, 2009

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

Christopher, Russell, A Political Theory of Blackmail: A Reply to Professor Dripps (March 11, 2009). Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2009, University of Tulsa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-06, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1357606

Russell Christopher (Contact Author)

University of Tulsa College of Law ( email )

3120 E. Fourth Place
Tulsa, OK 74104
United States
918-631-2440 (Phone)
918-631-2194 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
68
Abstract Views
621
Rank
603,475
PlumX Metrics