Invasion of Privacy, Missouri Revised Statute 565.253

The invasion of privacy is considered a crime in many countries and these countries have set up laws to ensure that those who are involved in such acts are punished by the law. The severity of these punishments range from country to country with those who are found guilty being fined, while others are given jail sentences (Davidson & Bryant, 2001). Privacy laws in the United States have their origins in the British common law which protected individuals from only the interference with their lives and with their property. This came to be further developed in the United States with the institution of state laws and statutes which further expanded this crime to include the interference of the emotional well being of a person. With the coming of and the continuous development of mass media, there seems to be very little privacy being left to individuals and this has ensured that the current state privacy laws continue to evolve to make sure that the privacy of individuals are protected (Sullivan, 2010). In this paper, we shall discuss the development of privacy laws in the states of America with specific reference to the state of Missouri.

The Missouri Revised Statute 565.253 states that a person will have committed the crime of the invasion of privacy in the second degree if such a person deliberately views, films, or takes another person’s photographs without the latter person’s awareness or permission (Missouri Revised Statutes, 2010). Moreover, this crime will be said to have been committed if the person being filmed or photographed is in a state of nakedness or partial nakedness and if this person is in a place where he or she would anticipate a reasonable belief of their own privacy. Furthermore, this statute states that a person shall be considered to have committed the crime of invasion of privacy if he secretly takes photographs or films another person using a concealed camera or camcorder without the latter’s consent.

As stated above, the early development of privacy laws started with the British common law and the purpose of these laws was originally to protect individuals from interference with their lives and property. However, these laws were further developed to include the protection of the spiritual nature of man as well as his feelings and intellect. These laws were later broadened to include the right of a person to be left alone and property was further defined as comprising of all forms of possessions, both tangible and intangible. Some scholars believe that the historical common law concerning privacy can still be applied today especially in situations where the right to privacy cannot be clearly defined by the current laws (Thaemert, 2002). They believe that the common law is much broader than current laws and that it would be best if it were to be taken seriously in matters concerning privacy and not disregarded as it is today. Common law privacy torts are very rarely used today and in fact, they are not applicable in cases where the affected person is considered to be newsworthy despite the fact that they provide a broader range of options that the Fourth Amendment does.

In the United States, the protection against the invasion of privacy varies from state to state and the American constitution itself does not provide strong penalties against it. Some states have a high level of protection against the invasion of privacy while some are more relaxed and a suspect may get off the hook easily (Siegel et al, 2009). This is not the case with common law which not only protects the right of individuals to be left alone but it also ensures that their property if protected. The common law is more specific in its application because it protects an individual from the invasion of their privacy from both the government and private citizens (Clapman, 2003). The evolution of the current laws and statutes has been largely influenced by the advent of mass media all over the world and the hunger that many people have for sensational news. Most of this highly demanded news requires that those pursuing it invade the privacy of the individuals who they are targeting in order to get the information that they need (De Reza, 2002). It is in such cases that statutes such as the Missouri Revised Statute 565.253 comes in as a way of controlling such behavior in society as well as ensuring that the right to privacy of individuals is protected. State statutes are created to deal with specific issues concerning privacy and are not as generalized as those of the common law. This means that state statutes do not cover everything concerning privacy and they instead make people feel insecure in matters involving their privacy. It would therefore be better if common law were given a little more priority when making decisions in matters concerning the invasion of privacy.

Many changes have taken place in privacy laws from historical common law to the state laws that are mostly used today. Most of these changes have come about as government attempts to put a definition to the various types of privacy invasions (Judge, 2002). Furthermore, the emergence of the media in the world today has made it necessary to make privacy laws which depend on the specific situations within which such media has invaded the privacy of individuals (Elizabeth, 1998). This has not only made privacy laws more complex but it has also ensured that there is a very thin line between whether one has indeed invaded the privacy of an individual or not. These new laws have created a scenario where one is never certain of ever getting justice if one’s privacy has been invaded and in fact, they actually have the opposite effect to what they are intended to do (Volkert, 2005). This is unlike the historical common law which tended to tackle matters directly and often pointed out that a violation of privacy had occurred no matter what the circumstances were. Moreover, the laws against the invasion of privacy in common law were not very complex and this ensured that they got straight to the point without the need of getting into complexities which would distort the entire case.

There are many ways through which this statute can be changed to ensure that matters concerning the invasion of privacy are swiftly dealt with. The first thing that should be done is to ensure that the complexity of the existing statute is reduced so that the public can better understand them and in the process have more confidence in them. Furthermore, there should be equal usage of both this statute and historical common privacy laws to provide stability to the decision making in invasion of privacy cases. The statute should be made to cover a broader range of invasion of privacy crimes than it currently does in order to reduce the number of statutes that have to be instituted to cover the same type of crime. The statute should be meant not only to deal with crimes of invasion of privacy involving the use of modern technology but should also be used to deal with other types of similar cases. To do this, some features of the common law should be included within this statute to enable it to complement the evolving needs that people have to protect the little privacy that they have left to them. This statute should not only target individuals who commit this crime, but it should also target the government and other powerful institutions which invade the privacy of individuals within the state of Missouri. This will not only ensure the efficiency of the law when dealing with such cases, but it will also discourage many who would have committed this crime from doing it.