Resolved: Blackmail should be legalized

Contention 1, (extortion and blackmail differ) The Pro is arguing that Extortion and Blackmail are unrelated by giving examples of each, Ill do the same but instead of phony examples I will give the actual definitions of both according to US law, Extortion: " a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion" 18 U.S.C. chapter 41 Blackmail: "a criminal offence, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing" 18 U.S.C. 873 Both are criminal offenses, both are used to unlawfully obtain something of value, and both do so by unlawfully coercing the other party to give in to ones demands. They are the same thing, even in US law blackmail is listed as a form of extortion. In the bold print you give in your argument you emphasize that extortion uses a threat which you yourself claim is and should be illegal. However when it comes to blackmail, you say the exact opposite, why is that? "Extortion is the demand for money or other valuable consideration, coupled with the threat to do something which both is and should be illegal" "blackmail is the demand for money or other valuable consideration coupled with the threat to do something which both is and should be legal" This is completely contradictory and makes no sense since blackmail and extortion are the same thing, the only difference between the two is the name.... You end the first contention about blackmail should be legal because the end result of blackmail is legal but extortion is not. In both end results the party being abused by the other is forced to give up some concession under a threat from the other party to cause direct harm. If they do not meet the demands of the first then the leverage that the abusing party has is used which results in illegal action, the illegal action being kickbacks from another party to the one using leverage in the first place. Contention 2 (coercive mechanisms) Coercive mechanisms arent illegal in society and I never implied that they should be. In blackmail however, the coercive mechanism used to obtain what one wants through blackmail is not accepted by society or by law..... The change you want to impose to blackmail laws is to regulate it only by creating contracts between two parties and that the contracts will single handedly eliminate all the corruption within blackmail....... But enforcing this law would be impossible (see contention #5 ) contention 3 (use of false information as blackmail) The response given to this argument is that "false information is slander which is illegal, so it wouldnt be an issue" but if the abused party cries out slander (which would they would do EVERY TIME) then there would have to be some sort of study or trial to determine if the accusations are true, if they were legally obtained, if it is admissible, etc. If information was leaked to the public it could compromise the entire deal which would result in one side suing for damages caused by the leak of information and yatta yatta yatta. Point is making the two sides in the blackmail deal make a formal deal would result in a bureaucratic nightmare with one deal gone bad resulting in a mess of trials, court dates, jury selections, examining of evidence, etc. that could be avoided if we simply kept blackmail illegal. Contention 4 (blackmailing for something one does not have) Buying a tv isnt blackmail from a store isnt blackmail and not having the goods the blackmailer is demanding would be ANOTHER argument that every party would use. If the party being blackmailed claims they do not possess what the blackmailer is demanding, then how would it be determined if they actually are telling the truth? It would require more investigations, actions of the party being blackmailed, more determining if the product or good in question even belongs to the party being blackmailed, etc which would result in another bureaucratic nightmare for the US legal system... Contention 5 (why contracts wont work) The main argument the Pro is making that by creating contracts to formalize deals made between parties committing extortion (oops i meant blackmail, I get them mixed up a lot since they mean the same thing) would eliminate the illegality behind blackmail and protect both parties. But there are many reasons that this system wont work and shouldnt be used. 1) You canto force both sides to come to the contract making agreement 2) The blackmailer could simply threaten not to try to make it official or he would release the (possibly false) information they have against the other group 3) The claims made by both sides would have to be investigated to rule out perjury, but that comes with the possibility of leaking info to the public 4) The one being blackmailed could always claim the information the blackmailer has isn't true or that they don't have what is being demanded 5) The process of crating the contract could take a long time, it would only take an impatient blackmailer to snap and reveal the damaging information or demand the deal be made immediately 6) The number of people required to make the contract is extensive, making the entire process even more complicated and time consuming 7) How would those who handle the contract created be paid? If blackmail aka extortion were legalized then someone would have to pay the lawyers. The bill would either be footed by tax payers or the people in the blackmail, and if the person with the information has to pay for a lawyer that would provide a great incentive to force the blackmailee to forgo the contract process.