The logic in the OP is wrong. While IANAL, I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that the law says nothing about the victim needing to be aware of the action for this to be a crime.
It’s not the police who are creating victims (note the lack of inverted commas) by attempting to identify and notify women who had this done to them. The guy created a victim when he perpetrated the crime. That the victim was unaware at the time does not mean he has not committed a crime a thus that there was no victim.
So the discussion needs to be reframed in terms of the possible consequences of identifying said victims, or the relative seriousness of this crime vs. others or the difficulty of prosecuting this case, but the law settles the question if there are victims or not.
I think that if the prosecution presented a very high number of such photos, with sufficient difference in build and complexion that they were all obviously of different women, and put his shoe camera into evidence (why would he need that if the photos were with permission?) and asked the jury to draw an inference, they’d get a conviction unless he put on evidence of consent from women involved.
I think it is you who has the logic backwards. Firstly, that the person photographed is unaware is certainly not relevant to whether a crime has been committed and no one is suggesting any different. The OP does not argue that the guy has not committed a crime because there is no “victim”.
Secondly, I simply don’t understand your final comment. While it varies from crime to crime, many times the law makes something criminal without reference to any need for a victim as such. So it certainly cannot be relied upon to settle whether there was a victim at all.
Thirdly, you are of course free to pose whatever discussion you want, but the OP is framed in terms of people who are photographed and never realise they are photographed ie they are never conscious of the matter. If you want to have some other discussion, feel free, but I don’t think that you have any particular authority to be telling the OP that they should be starting some other discussion.
Fourthly, and to get to the heart of the matter, you say “the guy created a victim when he perpetrated the crime”. What is your cite on that? Review some definitions of “victim”. You could start here if you like
The key is imposition of harm.
Not everone who is involved with a crime is harmed, or a victim. That doesn’t detract from what the criminal has done. Very often behaviour is criminalised due to a concern that harm *may * come to someone (thus making them a “victim”), not because someone will be harmed on every occasion.
Take say a drunk speeding motorist driving on the wrong side of the road. They may not actually endanger anyone at all if they do it on a quiet road at 3 am at a time when (as it happens) no one is about. That doesn’t mean they didn’t commit a crime. There were, however, no actual victims.
But someone may say “these women were actually photographed”. How can you be harmed or swindled or otherwise victimised if you are completely and utterly unaffected to the extent that there has been not only no material change to your person or property, but no mental effect since you simply have no knowledge at all of what went on? You can’t be skeeved out by something you are ignorant of. You can’t be embarrassed by something about you that no one (not even you) knows about.
Here’s another way of thinking about it: every single woman in Melbourne who has worn a skirt or dress in public in recent years could perhaps argue they were a victim in the sense that they may now have a certain “eww” feeling as a consequence of reading this story. How does it differ whether they were or were not actually photographed?
In the OPs scenario where no one but the photographer ever even knows that the pictures were taken, the victims have still lost something. They have lost the abilitiy to say no and to not participate. While they will probably never be impacted by that lose, it was still taken from them. That is the real crime here. It’s not the taking of the pictures, it’s the taking of the pictures without permission.
For those that are arguing that there is no victim if the victim doesn’t know it ever happened: What about copyrights and digital music? Suppose I will never buy a CD by group “The Teeming Millions”, but I find someone that has one. I burn a copy, and listen to it repeatedly. Has the band been harmed? I was never going to pay them royalties. So nothing has really changed, has it? How about someone that wouldn’t pay for cable TV, but hacks into their cable box and gets free cable.
Consider whether these situations shed some light on the OP.
While a doctor has a patient under anesthesia, and the patient is totally unaware, the doctor likes to stick his fingers in their mouth or rectum. He has gloves on. They don’t know about it. They haven’t been harmed. By your logic, there is no victim, unless someone finds out that it occurred.
I disagree. There is a victim from the moment the trust relationship was violated. The patient trusted the physician to respect the integrity and privacy of their body.
If a locksmith keeps copies of keys to homes or cars and then uses them “just enter and sit around” when no one is home or when people are sleeping, because it’s thrilling and no one knows, your argument would be that there are no victims.
I’d disagree here as well. The expectation of privacy, confidentiality and trust has been violated. Entry without permission is a crime with a victim.
Likewise, in your subway pervert scenario. There is a trust relationship between members of society that personal space and privacy will be respected. This trust relationship is not as overt as that between the doctor/patient or the locksmith/customer, but it still exists. Lifting of skirts, placing of hands into others pants pockets, etc. are violations of the trust we place in each other as members of society. Violating this trust, whether discovered or not, is a crime and has a victim. We expect to have surgery without being explored, to get a key made without giving access to our home, and to take a subway train without giving implied permission to look at parts of our body that we intend to keep private. Twisting words and definitions around and picking an implied contract rather than a specified one doesn’t negate the victimization.
If the weren’t about upskirt photos, but other crimes, would it change the arguments? (Since the person was arrested, I’m assuming that this is a crime in Australia although this may not be the case in all locations. Some courts in the US have found some local laws do cover upskirt photography, but Japanese courts have upheld convictions under public nuisance laws.)
Let’s look at As You Wish’s locksmith. If he or she doesn’t damage or harm anything, then the OP and Princhester among others are essentially claiming that the people whose homes were violated are not victims until the police notify them. The locksmith opens the door with the spare key, reads private diaries, checks out the medicine closet, and sees what sex toys are in the bedroom, but nope, we don’t have any victims because the rightful resident was unaware of this invasion of privacy.
One day, the locksmith opens a door only to find the occupants are there. He’s arrested and the police find evidence that he’s been doing this for several years. Maybe he’s been photographing diaries or copying computer files. For the sake of this example, let’s say the police are able to determine some of residences our villain has gotten into. The police then contact the homeowners.
The logic in the OP is that at that moment, when the police pick up the phone to notify these people that suddenly the police have created the victims. Sorry, but that’s absurd. The people whose homes were violated were victims of a crime, albeit unknowing ones. Notifying them of their status does not create that status, it simply reveals this status to them.
Princhester’s argument that anyone can claim to be a vicarious victim simply by reading about it is confusing the various definitions of “victim.” Fortunately, it seems that Princhester has the ability to research definitions online, and thus will not require additional help in finding an adequate description for a victim of a crime.
Finally, to answer a question posed in the OP, is there merit in the police asking for help in identifying other victims (as originally written in the article, and not “creating ‘victims’” as the OP mistakenly states)? Yes, absolutely. The culprit can only be charged when there was no consent, and the police need to find as many victims as possible in order to prove there was no concent and have the ability to charge him with multiple counts.
You are using a particular word to describe a particular situation. The usual definitions of the word don’t cover the situation you are using it for. All the rest is just handwaving.
I agree totally with your scenario, but with the proviso that until someone is aware that the ‘trust’ relationship has been violated, there is no victim as such.
I stand by the credo that unless the ‘victim’ considers themself a ‘victim’, there is no victim.
I don’t agree with the notion that you aren’t a victim of a crime until, if ever, you realise it. To me that makes as much sense as saying that you don’t have the word ‘LOSER’ written on your forehead until you see it in the mirror. I think the people pointing and laughing at you in the street would say otherwise.
I think that the issue here is the connotations of the word ‘victim’. It usually implies emotional upset, invoking images like the rape victim who’s sitting on the floor crying, or the guy finding his car broken into screaming and swearing. It might seem strange to call the girl who’s skipping happily down the street a victim, but that doesn’t change the fact that somebody has snapper her beaver in the subway.
Just because you’re so rich to notice ten bucks missing from that huge wad in your wallet, it doesn’t mean that you aren’t a victim of theft, even if you never know that it wasn’t taken until the day you die. The argument that this person is not a victim seems eerily close to the thief’s justification that ‘they’ll never miss ten bucks anyway’.
Correct. That’s the beauty of a language when there is a particular word which works to describe a particular situation.
What English word is used to describe those on the receiving end of a criminal action? If you are talking to cops about solving crimes and there are people on the receving end of the action, what word would they use?
As pointed out above, filming upskirts is apparently illegal in that location. While filming your ankles may be distressing, mostly to those who are forced to view said photos, it is not illegal.
Hogwash, both the OP and myself are not talking about the situation where there is unrealised harm ($10 missing but you don’t notice). Here, the crime is emotional, and you can’t be the victim of an emotional crime where you don’t know it’s happened to you.
You and the OP are projecting a meaning of an emotional victimization which is not in the cited article. The harm is not necessarily emotional. It is also concerning privacy, as argued by others and me.
There are a number of laws which making varous types of invasion of privacy illegal even in the absence of other type of harm or damage. Trespacing, wiretapping, hacking are a few examples.
Where has this special category of ‘emotional crime’ come from? You’ve just arbitrarily declared stalking as an emotional crime with the stipulation that it can’t have victims that are unknowing of the crime committed against them to distance it from theft which, according to you, does not have this stipulation (and is thus handily void for use as analogy).
:dubious:
Burglary is a crime.
Stalking is a crime.
Wearing yellow sunglasses on a Sunday is a (hypothetical) crime.
Two of these crimes have victims by legal definition. One does not. ‘Emotional’ or ‘Non-emotional’ labels are irrelevant and are not distinctly applied in any legal context.
When a guy steals a TV set, at that instant a crime has been committed and a perpetrator and a victim are ‘created’, whether the guy whose TV it was knows it or not, the police know it or not, or even the damn burgular knows it or not.
When a guy takes a picture of a woman’s crotch on the bus, he has committed a crime, and the woman is a victim of that crime because she is necessary as a third party for the act to be a crime in the first place. If she’s not a victim until she knows about it, then it would seem logical that the act would be legal until the woman knows about it. But it isn’t. It’s illegal from the moment that shutter clicks. The cops don’t look at a hoard of up-skirts and say ‘These chicks must not know about this, otherwise they’d slap the guy. No need to pursue this boys, there’s no victims here.’ In the OP’s case, they have pursued it, he will be charged, and they say there are countless victims. And until the CSI labs have a special Crotch and Thigh database to match to people, it’s quite likely that most, if not all, of the ‘countless victims’ will not be identified and thus informed of the stalking against them.
What about theft of underwear? It’s fairly common. Like up-skirt pictures, it is an invasion of privacy and sexually motivated. I’m sure women will be emotionally distressed to find out that a pervert has stolen their panties to stiff, as they would if they found out a pervert has taken snaps of their gusset to jerk off to. Where does this fit in with your ‘emotional crime’ definition? Is it:
A) Non-emotional. As with theft, there are victims in either case (knowing or unknowing)
B) Emotional. The special case. There are victims in one case (knowing) but not in the other (unknowing).
And why isn’t theft one of your emotional crimes? It can cause as much, if not more, emotional distress than knowing someone took a picture of your panties.
The problem is a sort of odd linguistic peculiarity.
The technical term for a person against whom a crime (or objectionable behavior that is not a crime, for that matter) has been perpetrated is “victim”. This term is used as a label to identify which party is which, essentially. The one on the receiving end of the objectionable behavior is its “victim”.
Sadly, in recent years, the word has taken on a whole load of Lifetime Movie of the Week baggage. Even more sadly, that baggage isn’t inconsistent with the actual definition and usage of the word. There’s a rather unfortunate tendency to fetishize vicitms.
In this case, the people who had their panties immortalized in film were on the receiving end of objectionable behavoir - in this case quite probably illegal objectionable behavoir (I know it is in my jurisdiction, but I don’t live in Oz). They remain the persons on the receiving end of objectionable behavior even if they’re not aware of the behavior. They still get the label.
I’ll be quite dismissive if any of them start appearing in the media claiming how emotionally scarred they are by the whole experience, but they’re still victims. Their role in the wrongdoing remains the same.
Wrongdoing is still wrongdoing even if nobody knows about it - if I kill someone who’ll never even be missed, I’m still a murderer and my deceased new associate is still a victim. It isn’t awareness of the wrongdoing that assigns roles in it.
Aangelica’s post clearly lays out the logic for why those on the receiving end of this criminal behavior are victims.
I’m surprised that people are not aware of the initial meaning of victim and who are only aware of the lately coined meanings.
Intrestingle as well, it really one takes a few minutes to verify the initial meaning, but arguing is so much funner, I guess.
For example this link is a report titled “Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005 Statistical Tables” by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which the initial usage is clearly shown.
This reminds me of the questions concerning the usage of “refugees” after Katrina and the comment by Civil rights activist Al Sharpton, “They are not refugees. They are citizens of the United States.”
