Passage Discussion

[samantha.rose.shulman]

The paragraph summary and diagram are attached below. I'm posting my solutions based on this breakdown for the questions below. Hope it helps!

[missbenyamin]

The paragraph summary and diagram are attached below. I'm posting my solutions based on this breakdown for the questions below. Hope it helps!

Here's my breakdown of passage structure:

Passage A

(Key:
Q = question;
^ = refers to statement in previous line
=> = leads to (cause/effect relationship)
MP = main point)

Paragraph 1:
-Blackmail unique among major crimes b/c no adequate explanation for why it should be illegal
-blackmail paradox = 2 acts, each legally permissible separately, become illegal when combined
-Q: why? ^ (the entirety of passage A can be interpreted as either (a) leading up to (paragraph 1,) (b) providing context for (paragraph 2,) or (c) providing one possible answer (paragraph 3) to this question.)

Paragraph 2:
-Lack of theory => impossible to draw line between legal/illegal => blackmail statutes broadly prohibit behavior not really believed to be criminal; reliance on prosecutors to not enforce statutes exactly as written

Paragraph 3:
-theory that works = Triangular structure is the key to wrongness of blackmail transaction (i.e. using 3rd party as leverage)
-Answer to Q in Paragraph 1 (why two legal acts become illegal when combined) = because involve misuse of 3rd party for blackmailer's own benefit (MP)

Passage B

(Key:
CRL = Classical Roman law;
VS. = versus, as opposed to;
=> = leads to (denotes cause/effect relationship);


Paragraph 1:
-blackmail doesn't have own category under Classical Roman law, b/c CRL evaluated by presence/lack of harm caused (VS. legality/illegality of action itself)

Paragraph 2:
-Unlawful = When shameful, private info is revealed AND leads to harm to person's status/reputation
-burden of proof lies on possessor of information (why did they share the info? need legitimate reason; see paragraph 3)

Paragraph 3:
-only time it is OK to share is when disclosure is made for legitimate purpose AND public authorities have interest in matter being revealed
-side note: truth not wholly irrelevant (a false disclosure granted less protection that true ones,) but both ultimately evaluated with same criterion (see previous bullet)

Similarities and Differences between the two passages:

(Overview) Passage A focuses on how blackmail is unique amongst major crimes in US and Canadian common law due to it's lack of explanation for why it should be illegal; focuses on how 2 acts each legal when occur separately, become illegal when coincide, then discusses why; conclusion = triangular structure (misuse of 3rd party) is the reason why blackmail is illegal

(Overview) Passage B focuses on Claissical Roman law, where blackmail is judged based on whether or not it causes harm (vs. legal/illegality of blackmail itself); specifically - blackmail illegal when shameful, private info is revealed leading to harm of person's reputation or status; possessor of info carries burden; disclosure OK only when disclosure is made for legitimate purpose and matter revealed is of interest to public authorities; truth of statement disclosed relevant at a very minimal level (false disclosure granted less protection than true ones)

(Differences) So, passage B focuses on Classical Roman law, where blackmail is not legal/illegal in and of itself, and is instead assessed based on harm caused, whereas passage A focuses on Canada/U.S. common law, and is concerned with why the two actions that make up blackmail, although each legal when they occur separately, become illegal when combined.

(Similarities) The two passages coincide in that they both discuss the aspects of blackmail that make it unlawful in the respective jurisdictions.