Is this really Extortion ?

What is the name of your state? New Hampshire

Hi,
I would like your view if the following situation is Attempted Extortion.

Patricia is a prostitute. Jim is one of her clients. Jim is
interested in a personal relationship with Patricia but after many months of trying Patricia does not seem cooperative. Jim discovers Patricia's real identity and some smoking gun evidence of her activities. Jim is a little involved with Patricia. Jim threatens to hand over the evidence to Law Enforcement if Patricia does not spend more time with him, and to make more of an effort to be friends with him. But at the same time Jim also gives Patricia an assurance, that if ever Patricia wants to quite being a Prostitute then Patricia can safely quit the Prostitution Business without any repercussions from Jim , and without any fears of being handed over to Law Enforcement by Jim.

At the outset it appears that Jim is guilty of Criminal Extortion of Patricia. However Jim is able to only extrort Patricia because Patricia did not take up Jim's offer of safe passage from the illicit Prostitution business, and that offer is available to Patricia at any time. Therefore in a sense Patricia chooses to be willingly extorted if she goes along with this arrangement. Moreover Jim is not asking for anything material like money or sex, just to be closer to Patricia.

In your opinion is Jim guilty of attempted criminal extortion?

Thanks.

Tell jim and patricia to get a room

And tell your professor this is not a homework site. It's for real legal problems.

This is a real life situation.

My response:

A person who wrongfully uses force or FEAR to obtain another's consent commits the crime of extortion (commonly known as "blackmail").

Threats unlawfully inducing fear:
Inducing fear through threats constitutes extortion when it causes one to change their position involuntarily by use of such coercion.

Truth no defense:
It makes no difference whether the accusation is true or false.

Criminal record:
A threat to expose a person's criminal record could constitute extortion under this provision. [See People v. Cadman (1881) 57 Cal. 562, 563-564]

IAAL

P.S. While this is California law, you'd be hard-pressed to find a different definition in any State of the Union.

Jim is a sick, pathetic loser. He uses blackmail to coerce and threaten a woman to give him sexual and other favors she does not want to give him, and then wonders about the legality and not the morality of his conduct. Jim is guilty of being a first-class sicko.

I thought that was what marriage was for?

This is a "sanitized" version of an on-going real life situation. Notice Jim is not asking for sexual favors from Patricia.

In real life Patricia is a married woman who enjoys sex, and turned herself into a high-class prostitute without ever telling her husband about it.

Jim is one of her clients, also married, who wanted both a business and personal relationship with Patricia.

The "REAL" situation doesn't matter.

IAAL has given you the statuory reference you need to understand.

calatty said:

Jim is a sick, pathetic loser. He uses blackmail to coerce and threaten a woman to give him sexual and other favors she does not want to give him, and then wonders about the legality and not the morality of his conduct. Jim is guilty of being a first-class sicko.

Click to expand...

My response:

The way to IAAL's heart is through "Ultra-Conservatism". CalAtty, you're making my heart melt.

These "love letters" are just wonderful - - and you know exactly what you're doing, don't you?

IAAL

Nonsense.

Since Jim is a client of Patricia, I would suggest that prior to making any calls to the police or threats to turn in Patricia for prostitution that Jim carefully review the prostitution statute. Also since Jim is married, I don't think that it is economically wise for Jim to be a client of a prostitute or to seek a relationship a business relationship with one. His wife may frown upon it.

This is not to be taken as condoning prostitution but did "Jim" ever consider the fact that "Patricia" just might not like him enough to want to have a personal relationship with him?

And who says that just b/c she is a prostitute that she has to "fall" for her clients!! To bring it all down to something simpler to understand, maybe she just doesn’t like him PERIOD!!

What a jerk!! Maybe a good, hard kick to his "minimized manhood" might get the message across! Ya think?!?! Three Adam's apples! Yeah! Go girl!

When I woke up this morning, it didn't cross my mind that I'd be siding with a hooker ... oh well. What the heck!! Go girl!

Answer the legal question

You are flaming on an oversimplified situation presented here for to illustrate the legal point.

If you like try instead addressing the legal question. This is a extortion situation but the victim has a choice available not to be extorted by having safe passage out of the criminal activity. Is it still extortion if the extortion vicitim declines the offer, and chooses to instead continue with the criminal activity? Does it then not become extortion because it now happens implictly with the consent of the victim?

Any opinions on that issue?

You have been given the legal opinion of many people already. You have failed to recognize it. So one more time:

This is a extortion situation but the victim has a choice available not to be extorted by having safe passage out of the criminal activity.

Click to expand...

This is not a defense to the crime of extortion, nor is it a mitigating circumstance. It is extortion as defined by the statutes. PERIOD!

Is it still extortion if the extortion vicitim declines the offer, and chooses to instead continue with the criminal activity?

Click to expand...

Extortion is not defined by the actions of the person to whom the extortion is intended. It is a simple issue of definition and that has already been addressed here.

Does it then not become extortion because it now happens implictly with the consent of the victim?

Click to expand...

The victim of extortion does not have to consent or not consent to the extortion. The act is in itself defined by the actions of the extorter. PERIOD.

The situation you have described in your original post is extortion. PERIOD. Case Closed. No mitigating circumstances, No defenses.

Now move on.

So GolfMike, what is your relationship to this whole mess? Hooker's side or Jim's side?