Source: (2006) In, Erik Claes, Antony Duff, and Serge Gutwirth. , eds., Privacy and the Criminal Law. Antwerpen-Oxford: Intersentia. PP. 163-179.
“Taking up Hudson’s concerns, this chapter asks whether privacy is best conceived of and protected as a right. It suggests that rather than see privacy as a universal value, it is better understood as a context dependent, cultural artifact, whose claim to protection is necessarily subject to countervailing interests. Although this is to propose a weaker conception of privacy than Hudson advocates, arguably it better acknowledges the variable nature of privacy interests that arise in respect of different penal theories and penal practice and their vulnerability to challenge. If privacy is less a right than a patchwork of related interests, then we need to map out what those interests are and how they vary in respect of different penal modes and practices. Only then will it be possible to consider the appropriate means to their protection.” (excerpt)
Your donation helps Prison Fellowship International repair the harm caused by crime by emphasizing accountability, forgiveness, and making amends for prisoners and those affected by their actions. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results are transformational.Donate Now