BEING THE JUDGE: WEIGHING EVIDENCE
Thecaseinvolves Ms. Cluster and her neighborswholive in thenext to her. Ms. Cluster secretlytakes the photo of her friends without permissionusingthe wrist watch camera. In thepictures, theyshowtheneighborrelaxingandreveal a pet that is playing. Shegoesahead to usethe photos in her bookknown as the ‘My Neighbor’. On seeingthis, Ms. Cluster’sneighborsues her to thecourt of lawforinvading her privatelife without permission. Sheclaimsthattheaim of Ms. Cluster was to invade her secretlife by the photo exhibition in her book ‘My Neighbor’. Ms. Cluster claimsthatthe photos hadno justified expectation of privacy under anycircumstances. Sheclaimsthatthephotographdid not showanyintimatemoments in thelives of theresident. With thecasepresentedthejudgegivesthejurisdiction of thecase.
Themodern technology has come with a lot of inventions. The wrist watch camera orthespy cameras are one of themostimprovedandcurrent technology. The wrist watch camera is a fashionablewatchand a surveillancedevice with durablematerials. Its stylishdesignenablesit to be worninanysituation. They are undetectable mini pinhole cameras that allowthedevice to shoot videos and cameras. Thesurveillance wrist watch camera is mostlyused in crimeinvestigationandbusinessnegotiation. In our case, Ms. Cluster usedthedevice to her neighborandcapturedsome photos privately. The camera allows one to explore someone without their consciousor noticing. Theyalsogiveroom to exploit someone’s privatelife. It is not easy to notice someone is capturing your movements. Thedevicemaintainshighsecrecy in its investigation(Edward Thompson, 1985).
According to thiscase, Ms. Cluster’sneighborshold a claim against her neighbor. Sheclaims on thesecretphotographtaking, privacylifeinterference, neighborhoodinterferenceanduse of the privatedeviceforinvestigating her. According to thelaw, one is onlyallowed to usewrist watch cameras under certaincircumstances. Thedevice are usedifinvestigating a courtcaseorbusinessissues. However, this is not thecase with Ms. Cluster because her reasonsforusingthedevicewere not justified. Shedid not haveanyfiledcase against her neighbororanybusinessmattersshewasinvestigating. Althoughsheclaimsthatshehad not captured her intimatemoments, thecourtfindsitliable to file a casefor Ms. Cluster forviolatingtheright to privacy of her neighbor (McKinney, W, 1996).
Accordingto thelaw, it is unethicalfor an individual to interrupt to one’s privatelife unless they are investigating a case. Private exploring is acceptablewhereby one have a filedcrime against someone. In thisinstance Ms. Cluster tookphotographs without consent from her neighbor, andshehadnofiledcase against her neighborsandtherefore, shehad not right to invade her lifeandcaptureprivatepictures without her consent.Accordingto thelaw, she is liable to punishmentforinvading her neighbor’s lifeandcaptures photo thatsheafterwardput in her book. As a judge, Ms. Cluster’s neighborhadtheright to claimthat her neighborhadinterfered with her life(Edward Thompson, 1985).
Theissue of takingprivatephotographs has becomeveryfrequent in thepublicplaces, in homes, schoolsandeven in transportation. Manypeopleare accusedoftakingpictures to people without consent. Due to thealarmingcases of secretphotos, police are orderingpeople to stoptakingthese photos. Thosewhofallvictimsthelaw is on them. In thiscase, Ms. Cluster is accused of takingphotographs of her neighbors without her consent. This isseen as an offense before thelaw. Shewas not supposed to takethosephotographs without thepermission of her neighbor. Rather than takingthephotos, shegoesaheadanddisplaysthephotos to a publicbook. Ms. Cluster’s neighborhadsupportingevidence of thephotographs that weretakenbecausetheyhadbeenrevealed in thebook ‘My Neighbor’ as a judgetheclaims of theneighbor are clearbecauseshehadsupportingevident.Again, Ms. Cluster did not explainwhyshehad to takethosephotographsanddisplay them. Shedid not have a supportive argument as to whyshetookthepicturesthereforeshewasliabletotheaccusations (McKinney, W, 1996).
Althoughthe technology is advanced, and there are wrist watch cameras, as a journalistit is unethical to takephotographsthat are not necessary. Thecase with Ms. Cluster shemisused her power as a reporterwherebytheyare entitled to pictureswhich are relevant. By taking her neighborpictureandalso their pet, itwas not acceptablebecausethiswas not related to thepublic. If anything is to be displayedtothepublic, according to thelaw, one must haveconsentandpermission. Ms. Cluster did not bother to getpermission from her neighborbuttaketheauthority to takethephotographs (McKinney, W, 1996).
According to theneighborhoodrulesandlaw, it is prohibited to interfere with one’s neighboractivities. This is a violation of their privaterights. Noone should come in andinterfere with theneighborlifeespecially in thoseapartmentswherepeople are many. Ms. Cluster wentaheadandinterfered with her neighbor’s lifeandrevealedsome of her privatelife which shedid not thinkitwaswrong. Thisbringsproblemandissues between theneighbors. They will start quarrying andargumentandblamingeachother. Therefore, it is advisablethatpeople should live their livesespeciallythoseliving in apartments. In thiscase, thiswasthebeginning of problemsandissues between Ms. Cluster and her neighborandthat’swhysheaccuses her. As a judge, thejournalistowedapologies to her neighborforinterfering with her life as a friend(Edward Thompson, 1985).
Based on thiscase, as a judge my ruling would be based on the two complainants. First, thejournalistclaimswere not supportive as to whyshetooktheprivatephotographs from her neighbor without theconsent. Althoughsheclaimsthatshehad not shownany of her intimatemoment, itwas not enough to let her go. Shehad to facepenalties on theallegations against her. She is supposed to payfinesforinterfering with her neighbor’s life, taking her photographs, usingthe wristwatch onthejob. Although there is roomfor her to defend herself fromtheallegations.
On theside of her neighborwhohavesued Ms. Cluster forinvading her privatelifeandtaking the photograph. Thisshows Ms. Cluster hadviolated her individualrightanddisrespectful to her. Theneighborhad a genuineclaimbecauseshehadevidentinthephotographsexhibited in Ms. Clusters book ‘My Neighbor’. Her neighborwasbound to complainbecauseshedid not theintention Ms. Cluster hadwhentakingpictures. Also, shehadfearbecauseshedid not knowhowmanytimes her neighborhaveinterfered with her life without her consent. My rulingis based on eachcomplaintclaimandtheevidenceeachperson has. Therefore, each one of them should getfairrulingandreasonablefinesaccording to theclaims against them (Edward Thompson, 1985).
1. Edward Thompson. (1985). Contracts: Reprinted from rulingcaselaw, VOL6 forlawschoolpurposesonly. Northport.
2. McKinney, W. (1996). Rulingcaselaw. Northport: Edward Thompson.
- Edward Thompson. (1985). Contracts: Reprinted from ruling case law, VOL6 for law school purposes only.
- Mckinney , W. (1996). Ruling case law. Northport: Edward Thompson.