Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:59:33.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reasonableness of Remaining Unobserved: A Comparative Analysis of Visual Surveillance and Voyeurism in Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Bert-Jaap Koops ,
Bryce Clayton Newell ,
Andrew Roberts ,
Ivan Škorvánek  and
Maša Galič
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The criminalization of offensive, privacy-intrusive behavior is an important form of privacy protection. However, few studies exist of visual observation in criminal law. We address this gap by researching when nonconsensual visual observation is deemed harmful enough to trigger criminal sanctions, and on what basis the law construes the “reasonableness of remaining unobserved,” through a nine-country comparative study. We distinguish between voyeurism-centric approaches (focusing largely on nudity and sex) and broader, intrusion-centric approaches (such as observation inside closed spaces). Both approaches explicitly or implicitly reflect “reasonable” privacy expectations, listing criteria for situations in which people can reasonably expect to remain unobserved or unrecorded. We present a framework for criminalizing nonconsensual visual observation, encompassing factors of technology use, place, subject matter, and surreptitiousness, supplemented by factors of intent, identifiability, and counter-indicators to prevent over-criminalization. This framework is relevant for protecting visual aspects of privacy in view of individuals' underlying autonomy interests.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , Fall 2018 , pp. 1210 - 1235
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Agre, Philip E. “Introduction.” In Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape, edited by Agre, Philip E. and Rotenberg, Marc, 1–28. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Blok, Peter. Het Recht op Privacy. The Hague: Boom Juridische uitgevers, 2002.Google Scholar
Brighenti, Andrea. “Visibility: A Category for the Social Sciences.” Current Sociology 55, no. 3 (2007): 323–42.Google Scholar
Crespi, Alberto, Federico, Stella, and Giuseppe, Zuccalà. Commentario breve al codice penale. Padua, Italy: CEDAM, 2008.Google Scholar
Department of Justice (Canada). Voyeurism as a Criminal Offence: A Consultation Paper. Ottawa, ON: Communications Branch, Department of Justice, 2002. http://justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/voy/part1_context.html#def.Google Scholar
Dolcini, Emilio, and Giorgio, Marinucci, eds. Codice penale commentato. Milan: IPSOA, 2011.Google Scholar
Filek, Bartłomiej. “Wizerunek nagiej osoby jako znamię przestępstwa z art. 191a § 1 k.k.” Prokuratura i Prawo 7–8 (2012): 61–77.Google Scholar
Fokkens, Jan Watse. “Artikel 139f.” In Het Wetboek van Strafrecht, edited by Noyon, T. J., Langemeijer, G. E., and Remmelink, J. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2004.Google Scholar
Garofoli, Roberto. Manuale di diritto penale. Parte speciale II. Milan: Giuffrè, 2006.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books, 1959.Google Scholar
Home Office (UK). Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sex Offences. London: Home Office, 2000. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/vol1main.pdf?view=Binary.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, Terry. “Doctrinal Research: Researching the Jury.” In Research Methods in Law, edited by Watkins, Dawn and Burton, Mandy, 7–33. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2013.Google Scholar
Kindhäuser, Urs, Neumann, Ulfrid, and Paeffgen, Hans-Ullrich, eds. Strafgesetzbuch, Band 2, 1376–90. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2013.Google Scholar
Koops, Bert-Jaap, and deRoos, Theo. “Materieel Strafrecht en ICT.” In Strafrecht en ICT, edited by Koops, Bert-Jaap, 23–75. The Hague: SDU, 2007.Google Scholar
Koskela, Hille. “Webcams, TV Shows and Mobile Phones: Empowering Exhibitionism.” Surveillance and Society 2, no. 2/3 (2004): 199–215.Google Scholar
Królikowski, M., and Sakowicz, A. “Art. 191a.” In Kodeks karny Część ogólna, Komentarz, edited by Królikowski, M. and Zawłocki, R., 553–58. Warsaw: C. H. Beck, 2015.Google Scholar
Liptak, Adam. “Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech.” New York Times, June 12, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html.Google Scholar
Lyon, David. Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Mantovani, Ferrando. Diritto Penale. Parte Speciale I. Delitti Contro la Persona. Padua: CEDAM, 2013.Google Scholar
Mozgawa, Marek. “Art. 191a.” In Kodeks Karny: Praktyczny Komentarz, edited by Kozłowska-Kalisz, Patrycja, Mozgawa, Marek, Kulik, Marek, and Budyn-Kulik, Magdalena. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, 2010.Google Scholar
Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16, no. 3 (1975): 6–18.Google Scholar
Nissenbaum, Helen. Privacy in Context. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Palazzo, Francesco Carlo. “Considerazioni in Tema di Tutela Della Riservatezza (a Proposito del “Nuovo” art. 615-bis).” Rivista Italiana di Diritto e Procedura Penale 18 (1975): 126–58.Google Scholar
Rössler, Beate. The Value of Privacy. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Sturken, Marita, and Cartwright, Lisa. Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Šugman Stubbs, Katja, and Gorkič, Primož. Dokazovanje v kazenskem postopku. Ljubljana, Slovenia: GV Založba, 2011.Google Scholar
Ten Voorde, J. M. “Artikel 139f.” In Strafrecht, edited by Cleiren, C. P. M., Crijns, J. H., and Verpalen, M. J. M. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2016.Google Scholar
Warylewski, Jaroslaw. Prestępstwa przeciwko dobrom indywidualnym. Warsaw: C. H. Beck, 2012.Google Scholar
Weinstein, Deena, and Weinstein, Michael. “On the Visual Constitution of Society: The Contributions of Georg Simmel and Jean-Paul Sartre to a Sociology of the Senses.” History of European Ideas 5, no. 4 (1984): 349–62.Google Scholar
Zweigert, Konrad, and Hein, Kötz. An Introduction to Comparative Law. Translated by Weir, Tony. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

BGH, judgment of 25 April 2017, 4 StR 244/16.Google Scholar
Cass. 28 November 2007, RP (2008).Google Scholar
Czech Supreme Court Resolution 4 Tdo 843 (2015).Google Scholar
Czech Supreme Court Resolution 6 Tdo 942 (2011).Google Scholar
Czech Supreme Court Resolution 6 Tdo 1028 (2010).Google Scholar
Higher Court in Ljubljana, Criminal Division, Decision I Kp 106 (2008).Google Scholar
Higher Court in Ljubljana, Criminal Division, Decision VII Kp 39584 (2014).Google Scholar
PNSI v. MacRitchie, [2008] NICA 28 (2008).Google Scholar
R. v. Bassett, [2008] EWCA Crim 1174 (2008).Google Scholar
R. v. Lebenfish, [2014] ONCJ 130 (2014).Google Scholar
R. v. Rudiger, BCSC 1397 §§74, 77–78 (2011).Google Scholar
R. v. Swyer, [2007] EWCA Crim. 204 (2007).Google Scholar
R. v. Taylor, [2015] ONCJ 449 (2015).Google Scholar
Slovenian Supreme Court, Criminal Division, Judgment I Ips 76261 (2010).Google Scholar
Slovenian Supreme Court, Criminal Division, Judgment VSL II Kp 76261 (2010).Google Scholar
Smith v. Chief Superintendent, Woking Police Station, 76 Cr App R 234 (1983).Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

California Penal Code § 647(i)–(j) (2017).Google Scholar
Conn. Gen. Stats. § 53a–189c (2017).Google Scholar
Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) § 162 (2017).Google Scholar
Czech Criminal Code § 181 (2017).Google Scholar
Dutch Criminal Code, Art. 139f (2017).Google Scholar
Dutch Criminal Code, Art. 441b (2017).Google Scholar
Fla. Stats. §§ 810.14(a), 810.145 (2017).Google Scholar
German Criminal Code § 201a (2017).Google Scholar
Hawai'i Rev. Stats. 711–1110.9 (2017).Google Scholar
Italian Criminal Code, Art. 615-bis (2017).Google Scholar
Italian Criminal Code, Art. 734-bis (2017).Google Scholar
Kan. Stats. § 21–6101 (2017).Google Scholar
Miss. Code § 97-29-63 (2017).Google Scholar
New York Penal Law § 250 (2017).Google Scholar
Polish Criminal Code, Art. 191a (2017).Google Scholar
Polish Criminal Code, Art. 267(3) (2017).Google Scholar
Sexual Offences Act (England and Wales) (2003).Google Scholar
Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order (2008).Google Scholar
Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act (2009).Google Scholar
Slovenian Criminal Code, Art. 138 (2017).Google Scholar
Rev. Code of Wash. (RCW) § 9A.44.115 (2017).Google Scholar
Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 1801 (2012).Google Scholar