Without One's Knowledge

[kadzbiz]

A story on tonight's news got me thinking. The story was about a guy who was arrested for some sort of property offences, but when the police confiscated some video equipment, they discovered that a heap of females had been secretly filmed; like upskirt, changing room and general indiscreet footage. The comment by police was that they would have to locate and inform all the female victims.

Let me get your opinion. When does one become a victim of a crime? I would say someone becomes a victim when they knowingly become emotionally, physically or financially affected in a negative way by an unlawful act. By my thinking, the women in these movies are none of those things until the police make them aware of the situation. What do you think? Okay, the guy shouldn't be doing this sort of stuff and it's probably a good idea that people are made aware that this guy, or any other person, is out there doing this sort of stuff, but haven't the police themselves made the women in the movies the victim?

Has a crime been committed at all? I mean, if there is no victim (because they don't know that they are one) there can't be a crime, right?

And just one other thing while I think of it. A guy got charged for taking photographs (stalking act) of topless women on a beach without their knowledge. Now, if the women are lying there topless amongst other beach users and anyone walking by can see them topless, how can they claim be offended by someone who takes a photo of them? And again, the women didn't know the photographs had been taken until the police told them. What are your thoughts on these issues?

My opinion; I don't think the women on the beach have a right to charge the guy. As for the videoing stuff, I think it's a disgusting thing to do and would be upset if my wife or daughter was secretly filmed.

 

[Sunstone]

Suppose someone gave someone a "date rape" drug. That is, a drug that prevents someone from remembering what happens to them. Then suppose they raped that person. Would we consider no crime to have been committed simply because the victim could not recall being raped?

 

[Willamena]

Suppose someone gave someone a "date rape" drug. That is, a drug that prevents someone from remembering what happens to them. Then suppose they raped that person. Would we consider no crime to have been committed simply because the victim could not recall being raped?

But wouldn't there be signs afterwards?

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Suppose someone gave someone a "date rape" drug. That is, a drug that prevents someone from remembering what happens to them. Then suppose they raped that person. Would we consider no crime to have been committed simply because the victim could not recall being raped?

Good point. Just because the crime was not discovered immediately, that does not diminish the fact that people were victimized.

While it is true that you do not have a right 'not' to be photographed in a public place, the changing room carries a reasonable expectation of privacy, and this man certainly violated a law by filming the women there. Some communities have laws against filming people at unnatural angles or in a surreptitious manner, but the challenge is idenifying the victim and determining exactly how the person was 'damaged'.:sorry1:

Regarding the 'stalking' aspect, it's possible the guy could have broken a law there if he took an inordinate number of photos of the same women. We can't know for certain as there are a lot of details we don't have.

Playing lawyer on the internet is fun nonetheless.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Thousands of people are unknowing victims of crime... It makes no difference in law whether they know about it or not.

To photograph an adult in a public place, in any state of undress, is not a crime in this country. .... unless they were using a long lens from a distance. ( this has been made an offence)... A long lens is open to interpretation by a court but it would not be worth risking.

 

[kadzbiz]

Suppose someone gave someone a "date rape" drug. That is, a drug that prevents someone from remembering what happens to them. Then suppose they raped that person. Would we consider no crime to have been committed simply because the victim could not recall being raped?

But wouldn't there be signs afterwards?

As Willamena says, there would be signs, hence a negative physical affect.

...... Just because the crime was not discovered immediately, that does not diminish the fact that people were victimized.

.............. is idenifying the victim and determining exactly how the person was 'damaged'. .......

Agreed.

Thousands of people are unknowing victims of crime... It makes no difference in law whether they know about it or not. ....

Except that until the offence is disclosed, it isn't able to be actioned.

 

[Quagmire]

I think a crime's been commited as soon as someone's rights are violated.

If you kill someone they wont know it, but they're still a victim.

 

[Kungfuzed]

I can see what you mean. Should something be considered a crime if no harm was done? In the case of robbery, rape, or murder, harm was done wether the victim was aware of it or not. But in the case of the OP, it was just an ordinary day for the "victim". There would be no harm done at all so long as the ladies remained ignorant of what happened. If someone were to tell them, the knowledge of the act would cause the damage and victimize the ladies. Will it really do any good to tell them? The police might be better off just prosecuting the perpetrator and leaving the ladies out of it.

I can just imagine how they would identify them.

"Maam, we need to identify you. Will you please bend over and lift up your skirt?"

 

[kadzbiz]

.....The police might be better off just prosecuting the perpetrator and leaving the ladies out of it.....I can just imagine how they would identify them. "Maam, we need to identify you. Will you please bend over and lift up your skirt?"

ROFL. In this state at least, prosecution cannot go ahead without a victim, whether it is a person, company or statute. Of course, there has been occasions where people have been found guilty of murder without a body ever being presented, but in those cases there were others who were associated with the deceased that could contribute to the case being proven beyond a reasonable doubt.