Blackmail Revisited

[GulPlum]

No: HPFGUIDX 52711

At 18:40 21/02/03 , Steve <bboy_mn at yahoo.com> wrote:
>Since the subject of Rite Skeeter has come up again, so has the
>subject of Blackmail, but I think many people have a warped idea of
>what Blackmail is. Blackmail is a crime of theft; a form of stealing.
>
>Blackmail says, give me what I want even though it doesn't belong to
>me, or else.

Sorry, Steve, but that is a distortion of any definition of blackmail, and 
certainly of the legal one (in both the UK and US). Blackmail is a sub-set 
of extortion, not larceny. The crime is in the threat, not in the object 
being extorted.

Extortion can be summarised as "If you don't do X, I will do Y". There are 
several kinds of extortion, the most frequent of which are "extortion with 
menaces" (i.e. "Y"= "I will harm/kill you/your family"), and blackmail, in 
which the usual form of Y is "I will tell people something about you which 
you don't want them to know". It should be noted that in everyday usage, 
"blackmail" is often used as a synonym of extortion of any kind.

For a prosecuting authority to prove blackmail, they need not prove any 
intent to obtain "X". All they need prove is that a threat to do "Y" was 
presented. They don't need to prove that the blackmailer was able to carry 
out the threat, only that the blackmailee thought the threat to be real at 
the time it was made.

Technically, they don't even need to adduce the specifics of "Y", although 
in most cases it's impossible to prove the case for blackmail to a jury's 
satisfaction without specifying exactly *what* was being threatened, and 
why the blackmailee would consider it a serious threat to their reputation, 
safety or livelihood.

In practice, blackmail is often only one of a number of charges being 
presented, usually effectively a secondary charge. I can understand 
where  where Steve's confusion comes from because most often in the real 
world, blackmail is a means to larceny (i.e. obtaining something which 
doesn't belong to you), and larceny/robbery will be the primary charge. 
This is mainly for reasons of practicality: it is usually easier to prove 
that item X in person A's possession (the blackmailer) does not belong to 
him but to person B (the blackmailee),  rather than proving the blackmail 
itself. It is also easier on person B because by proving that X rightfully 
belongs to him, they only need prove the immediate means by which A came 
into possession of X (and thus proved the larceny), so the jury don't 
necessarily care what the subject of the blackmail was.

On to canon. The fact that Bagman has illegally (or at least, 
dishonourably) refused to pay Gred & Forge their winnings does not make 
blackmailing him into paying up appropriate. The authorial voice is quite 
clear that regardless of the legality of blackmail, and regardless of the 
fact that the Twins deserve the money,  it would be *dishonourable* to 
stoop to blackmail. The Weasleys (including the Twins) each have their good 
and bad points, but they all have very high feelings of personal honour 
(e.g. the Twins refuse to cheat at Quidditch, even though the Beaters of 
other teams play hard and fast with the rules and their spirit). The moral 
of the tale is that two wrongs don't make a right; they get their money 
anyway, because it is partially their loss to Bagman which persuades Harry 
to give them his winnings. Bagman is also shown to have got his comeuppance 
because he's in deep trouble with the Goblins; on top of that, the Goblins 
were left with a load of Leprechaun gold. There is, incidentally, a 
secondary moral of "gambling isn't worth it" in the sub-text.

The authorial voice on Hermione is altogether more complicated. Actually, 
it's not so much about blackmail but kidnapping. We are encouraged to feel 
*good* about the fact that Hermione has imprisoned Skeeter. She promises to 
release the beetle in London, but this is a full week after Rita was 
captured, a little detail we're not encouraged to dwell upon.

On the other hand, the small blackmail element is really a forced quid pro 
quo, rather than straight blackmail. Hermione and the team have just as 
much to lose as Rita does.

What Hermione doesn't seem to realise is that Skeeter has already devalued 
Hermione's credibility over the year, and all she'd need to do is write a 
couple of articles about how flaky Hermione is and how far-fetched her 
theories, that any threat on Hermione's part to reveal her Animagus status 
would be meaningless. We should also remember that Malfoy knows all about 
the kidnap/blackmail which isn't particularly clever.

As it happens, I have a feeling that Rita just might call Hermione's bluff...

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who is beginning(?) to ramble...