|
Միացյալ Նահանգների [[Հետաքննությունների դաշնային բյուրո|ՀԴԲ-ն]] պնդում է, որ որոշ անհատներ, ովքեր զբաղվում են «անհանգստացնող» հանցագործություններով (օրինակ՝ վոյերիզմով), կարող են նաև բռնության հակվածություն ունենալ՝ հիմնված լուրջ սեռական հանցագործների վարքագծի վրա<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hazelwood |first=R.R. |last2=Warren |first2=J. |date=February 1989 |title=The Serial Rapist: His Characteristics and Victims |journal=FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin |pages=18–25}}</ref>։ ՀԴԲ-ի հետազոտողն առաջարկել է, որ վուայերները, ամենայն հավանականությամբ, կցուցադրեն որոշ հատկանիշներ, որոնք ընդհանուր են, բայց ոչ համընդհանուր, լուրջ սեռական հանցագործների շրջանում, ովքեր զգալի ժամանակ և ջանք են ներդնում զոհի (կամ զոհի կերպարը) գրավելու համար, զգույշ, մեթոդական պլանավորում՝ նվիրված սարքավորումների ընտրությանը և պատրաստմանը. և հաճախ մանրակրկիտ ուշադրություն դարձնում մանրուքների նկատմամբ<ref>[https://www.fbi.gov/library/leb/leb.htm The Criminal Sexual Sadist] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010331053541/https://www.fbi.gov/library/leb/leb.htm|date=March 31, 2001}}</ref>։
Վոյերիստների ժողովրդագրական տվյալները գործնականում չեն ուսումնասիրվել։
== Իրավական կարգավիճակ ==
Ըստ օրենքի վուայերիզմը հանցագործություն չէ: Ընդհանուր իրավունքի երկրներում դա հանցագործություն է միայն այն դեպքում, եթե նախատեսված է օրենսդրությամբ:
Voyeurism is not a crime in [[common law]]. In common law countries, it is only a crime if made so by legislation.
[[Պատկեր:2001_Low-rise_jeans_and_thong_whale_tail.jpg|մինի|Կնոջ լուսանկար, որը արվել է Կանադայում: Կանադայի օրենսդրության համաձայն, քանի որ լուսանկարն արվել է արագ սննդի ռեստորանում, հանրային վայրում, լուսանկարիչը չի խախտել օրենքը:]]
In Canada, for example, voyeurism was not a crime when the case ''[[Frey v. Fedoruk et al.]]'' arose in 1947. In that case, in 1950, the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] held that courts could not criminalise voyeurism by classifying it as a [[breach of the peace]] and that Parliament would have to specifically outlaw it.
A test of the lack of laws related to voyeurism came in February 2005. It became public knowledge that a website called peepingthong.com had become a depository of photos showing young women, many of them [[University of Victoria]] students, sitting down at various campus locations, such as libraries. While the act of photographing them in isolation may not have caused a commotion, each of the women revealed their [[thong underwear]] to create a [[whale tail]].<ref name="Schmidt A6">{{cite news |last=Schmidt |first=Sarah |date=February 4, 2005 |title={{as written|Wome|ns' [sic]|expecting=Women's}} panties 'hunted' by UVic voyeur |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-vancouver-sun-womens-panties-hunte/137588786/ |access-date=December 28, 2023 |newspaper=[[Vancouver Sun]] |page=A6 |via=newspapers.com |agency=[[CanWest News Service]]}}</ref>
Reaction from female members of the university community was not positive. The chairwoman of the student union, Joanna Groves, believed that perpetrator(s) committed an action that were “a violation of someone’s privacy.”<ref name="Schmidt A6" /> The outreach coordinator for the University of Victoria Student Society Women's Centre, Caitlin Warbeck, went as far as to call it “sexual assault.”<ref>{{cite news |author1=Sean Patrick Sullivan |author2=Megan Stewart |date=February 3, 2005 |title=Voyeurism at UVic |url=http://www.martlet.ca/news1.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050206091317/http://www.martlet.ca/news1.html |archive-date=February 6, 2005 |newspaper=The Martlet}}</ref> The photographed individuals also appeared to be completely unaware that they were being watched.<ref name="Schmidt A6" />
While the photos did cause a commotion, law enforcement could not do anything because the photos were snapped in public locations. University administrators were also powerless because the site was not affiliated with the institution.<ref name="Schmidt A6" /> Campus security, however, did put up flyers in certain parts of campus where the perpetrator(s) were believed to be operating.<ref>{{cite news |last=Gidney |first=Norman |date=February 5, 2005 |title=Students upset at 'scary' thong photo site |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/times-colonist-students-upset-at-scary/137589427/ |access-date=February 5, 2005 |newspaper=[[Times Colonist]] |page=C1 |via=newspapers.com}}</ref>
On November 1, 2005, Parliament outlawed voyeurism when section 162 was added to the Canadian [[Criminal Code (Canada)|''Criminal Code'']], declaring voyeurism to be a sexual offence when it violates a reasonable expectation of privacy.<ref>{{cite web |last=Branch |first=Legislative Services |date=2019-06-17 |title=Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Criminal Code |url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-78.html?texthighlight=voyeuristic+voyeurism#s-162. |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151005120230/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-78.html?texthighlight=voyeuristic+voyeurism#s-162. |archive-date=2015-10-05 |access-date=2014-09-25 |website=laws-lois.justice.gc.ca}}</ref> In the case of R v Jarvis, the Supreme Court of Canada held that for the purposes of that law, the expectation of privacy is not all-or-nothing; rather there are degrees of privacy, and although secondary-school pupils in the school building cannot reasonably expect as much privacy as in the bedroom, nonetheless they can expect enough privacy so that photographing them without their consent for the purpose of sexual gratification is forbidden.<ref>{{Cite web |title=R. v. Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10, [2019] 1 S.C.R. 488 |url=https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2019/37833-eng.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210508042844/https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2019/37833-eng.pdf |archive-date=2021-05-08 |access-date=2021-07-12}}</ref>
In some countries voyeurism is considered to be a [[sex crime]]. In the United Kingdom, for example, non-consensual voyeurism became a criminal offence on May 1, 2004.<ref>Section 67 of the [[Sexual Offences Act 2003]]; brought into force by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Commencement) Order 2004</ref> In the English case of ''R v Turner'' (2006),<ref>(2006) All ER (D) 95 (Jan)</ref> the manager of a sports centre filmed four women taking showers. There was no indication that the footage had been shown to anyone else or distributed in any way. The defendant pleaded guilty. The [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]] confirmed a [[Sentence (law)|sentence]] of nine months' imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the abuse of trust and the traumatic effect on the victims.
In another English case in 2009, ''R v Wilkins'' (2010),<ref>(2010) Inner London Crown Court, R v Wilkins.</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=4 March 2010 |title=BBC Radio producer jailed over sex tapes |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8549608.stm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100307155303/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8549608.stm |archive-date=7 March 2010 |access-date=7 March 2010 |publisher=BBC}}</ref> a man who filmed his intercourse with five of his lovers for his own private viewing was sentenced to eight months in prison and ordered to sign onto the Sex Offender Register for ten years. In 2013, 40-year-old Mark Lancaster was found guilty of voyeurism and jailed for 16 months. He had tricked an 18-year-old student into traveling to a rented flat in Milton Keynes. There, he had filmed her with four secret cameras dressing up as a schoolgirl and posing for photographs before he had sex with her.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Brown |first1=Jonathan |last2=Philby |first2=Charlotte |last3=Milmo |first3=Cahal |date=2013-07-19 |title=Computer consultant Mark Lancaster jailed for 16 months for voyeurism and trafficking after using 'sex for fees' website to dupe student into having sex with him |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/computer-consultant-mark-lancaster-jailed-for-16-months-for-voyeurism-and-trafficking-after-using-sex-for-fees-website-to-dupe-student-into-having-sex-with-him-8721078.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150925155634/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/computer-consultant-mark-lancaster-jailed-for-16-months-for-voyeurism-and-trafficking-after-using-sex-for-fees-website-to-dupe-student-into-having-sex-with-him-8721078.html |archive-date=2015-09-25 |access-date=2017-09-17 |work=The Independent |location=London}}</ref>
In a more recent English case in 2020, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of Tony Richards. Richards had sought "to have two voyeurism charges under section 67 of the [[Sexual Offences Act 2003|Sexual Offences Act]] dismissed on the grounds that he had committed no crime".<ref name=":0">(2020) Court of Appeal, R v Richards.</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Bowcott |first=Owen |date=2020-01-28 |title=Filming partner without their consent during sex ruled a criminal offence |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/28/filming-partner-without-their-consent-during-sex-ruled-a-criminal-offence |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200402001135/https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jan/28/filming-partner-without-their-consent-during-sex-ruled-a-criminal-offence |archive-date=2020-04-02 |access-date=2020-05-27 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> Richards had "secretly videoed himself having sex with two women who had consented to sex in return for money but had not agreed to being captured on camera".<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=2020-01-29 |title=Woman who was told man that filmed her naked without consent could not face charges wins fight for justice |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/naked-filming-no-consent-emily-hunt-cps-a9306921.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200206052014/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/naked-filming-no-consent-emily-hunt-cps-a9306921.html |archive-date=2020-02-06 |access-date=2020-05-27 |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref> In an unusual step, the court allowed Emily Hunt, a person not involved in the case, to intervene on behalf of the [[Crown Prosecution Service]] (CPS). Hunt had an ongoing [[Judicial review in English law|judicial review]] against the CPS. The CPS had argued that Hunt's alleged attacker had not violated the law when he "took a video lasting over one minute of her naked and unconscious" in a hotel room -- the basis being that there should be no expectation of privacy in the bedroom. However, in terms of what is considered a private act for the purposes of voyeurism, the CPS was arguing the opposite in the Richards appeal.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> The Court of Appeal clarified that consenting to sex in a private place does not amount to consent to be filmed without that person's knowledge. Anyone who films or photographs another person naked, without their permission, is breaking the law under sections 67 and 68 of the Sexual Offences Act.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Savin |first=Jennifer |date=2020-03-26 |title=It's now illegal to take naked pictures of someone without permission |url=https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a31903651/the-queen-accidentally-meme-boris-johnson/ |access-date=2020-05-27 |website=Cosmopolitan |language=en-GB}}</ref>
In the United States, video voyeurism is an offense in twelve states<ref>{{cite web |last=Norman-Eady |first=Sandra |title=Voyeurism |url=https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt%5Colr%5Chtm/98-R-1034.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160821073622/https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt%5Colr%5Chtm/98-R-1034.htm |archive-date=2016-08-21 |access-date=2016-07-27 |website=www.cga.ct.gov}}</ref> and may require the convicted person to register as a [[sex offender]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Peeping Tom Law & Legal Definition |url=http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/peeping-tom |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090529040623/http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/peeping-tom/ |archive-date=2009-05-29 |access-date=2009-08-18}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=June 2010}} The original case that led to the criminalisation of voyeurism has been made into a television movie called ''[[Video Voyeur]]'' and documents the criminalisation of [[secret photography]]. Criminal voyeurism statutes are related to invasion of privacy. laws<ref>{{cite web |title=Invasion of Privacy Law & Legal Definition |url=http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invasion-of-privacy/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190829175222/https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invasion-of-privacy/ |archive-date=2019-08-29 |access-date=2011-11-29 |publisher=Definitions.uslegal.com}}</ref> They are specific to unlawful surreptitious surveillance without consent and unlawful recordings. These statutes include the broadcast, dissemination, publication, or selling of recordings. They involve places and times when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a reasonable supposition they are not being photographed or filmed -- by "any mechanical, digital or electronic viewing device, camera or any other instrument capable of recording, storing or transmitting visual images that can be utilised to observe a person."<ref>{{cite web |title=Stephanie's Law |url=http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch69_2003_stephanie_vidvoy.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110930192517/http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch69_2003_stephanie_vidvoy.htm |archive-date=2011-09-30 |access-date=2011-11-29 |publisher=Criminaljustice.state.ny.us}}</ref>
Saudi Arabia banned the sale of camera phones nationwide in April 2004, but reversed the ban in December 2004. Some countries, such as [[South Korea]] and [[Japan]], require all camera phones sold in their country to make a clearly audible sound whenever a picture is being taken. In [[South Korea]], specialty teams have been set up to regularly check places like bathrooms and change-rooms for hidden cameras known as "[[molka]]".<ref>{{Cite news |last= |date=2021-06-16 |title=When Ye-rin's boss gave her a clock, she put it by her bed. A month later, she found what was hidden inside |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-17/spy-cam-sex-crimes-in-south-korea-leave-women-fearful/100214532 |access-date=2023-06-16 |work=ABC News |language=en-AU}}</ref>
In 2013, the [[Indian Parliament]] made [[Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013|amendments]] to the [[Indian Penal Code]], introducing voyeurism as a criminal offence.<ref>{{cite web |title=Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 |url=http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/TheCrimnalLaw030413.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130417194151/http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/TheCrimnalLaw030413.pdf |archive-date=17 April 2013 |access-date=16 April 2013 |publisher=Government of India}}</ref> A man committing the offence of voyeurism would be liable for imprisonment of not less than one year and up to three years and a fine for the first offence. For any subsequent conviction, he would be liable for imprisonment for not less than three years and up to seven years as well as a fine.
Կանադայում, օրինակ, վուայերիզմը հանցագործություն չէր համարվում, երբ 1947 թվականին հարուցվեց «Ֆրեյն ընդդեմ Ֆեդորուկի և այլոց» գործը։ Այս դեպքում, 1950 թվականին, Կանադայի Գերագույն դատարանը որոշեց, որ դատարանները չեն կարող քրեականացնել վուայերիզմը՝ այն դասակարգելով որպես հասարակական կարգի խախտում, և որ խորհրդարանը պետք է այն օրենքից դուրս հայտարարեր:
Voyeurism is generally deemed illegal in [[Singapore]]. Those convicted of voyeurism face a maximum punishment of one year in jail and a fine -- based on insulting a woman's modesty.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Chong |first1=Elena |title=Marketing manager jailed 18 weeks for upskirt videos |url=http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/marketing-manager-jailed-18-weeks-for-upskirt-videos |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151202020012/http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/marketing-manager-jailed-18-weeks-for-upskirt-videos |archive-date=2 December 2015 |access-date=1 December 2015 |newspaper=Straits Times}}</ref> Recent cases in 2016 include the sentencing of church facility manager Kenneth Yeo Jia Chuan who filmed women in toilets. Yeo Jia Chuan planted pinhole cameras in a handicapped toilet at the Church of Singapore at [[Bukit Timah]], and in the unisex toilet of the church's office at Bukit Timah Shopping Centre.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Yusof |first1=Zaihan Mohamed |title=Marketing manager jailed 18 weeks for upskirt videos |url=https://tnp.straitstimes.com/news/singapore-news/man-jailed-secretly-filming-women-church-toilets |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304115803/http://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore-news/man-jailed-secretly-filming-women-church-toilets |archive-date=4 March 2016 |access-date=3 March 2016 |publisher=The New Paper}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Chelvan |first1=Vanessa Paige |title=Ex-church staff jailed 20 months for secretly filming women in the toilet |url=http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ex-church-staff-jailed-20-months-secretly-filming-women-toilet |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305091204/http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ex-church-staff-jailed-20-months-secretly-filming-women-toilet |archive-date=5 March 2016 |access-date=3 March 2016 |publisher=Today}}</ref>
Վուայերիզմի հետ կապված օրենքների բացակայության փորձարկումը տեղի ունեցավ 2005 թվականի փետրվարին: Հանրությանը հայտնի դարձավ, որ peepingthong.com կոչվող կայքը դարձել է լուսանկարների պահոց, որտեղ պատկերված են երիտասարդ կանայք, որոնցից շատերը [[Վիկտորիայի համալսարան|Վիկտորիայի համալսարանի]] ուսանողներ են, նստած տարբեր համալսարանական վայրերում, ինչպիսիք են գրադարանները: Նրանց մեկուսացված լուսանկարելու գործողությունը կարող էր իրարանցում չառաջացնել, եթե կանանցից յուրաքանչյուրը չցուցադրեր կետի պոչի տեսքով իր տրինգ-վարտիքը<ref name="Schmidt A62">{{Cite news |last=Schmidt |first=Sarah |date=February 4, 2005 |title={{as written|Wome|ns' [sic]|expecting=Women's}} panties 'hunted' by UVic voyeur |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-vancouver-sun-womens-panties-hunte/137588786/ |access-date=December 28, 2023 |work=[[Vancouver Sun]] |page=A6 |via=newspapers.com |agency=[[CanWest News Service]]}}</ref>։
Secret photography by law enforcement authorities is called [[surveillance]] and is not considered to be voyeurism, though it may be unlawful or regulated in some countries.
== Ժողովրդական մշակույթ ==
|
