It's Good to be Autonomous: Prospective Consent, Retrospective Consent, and the Foundation of Consent in the Criminal Law
Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (3):377-398 (2011)
|Abstract||What is the foundation of consent in the criminal law? Classically liberal commentators have offered at least three distinct theories. J.S. Mill contends we value consent because individuals are the best judges of their own interests. Joel Feinberg argues an individual’s consent matters because she has a right to autonomy based on her intrinsic sovereignty over her own life. Joseph Raz also focuses on autonomy, but argues that society values autonomy as a constituent element of individual well-being, which it is the state’s duty to promote. The criminal law’s approach to the problem of non-contemporaneous consent—prospective consent and retrospective consent—casts a unique light on the differences among these three justifications. Peter Westen claims neither Mill’s nor Feinberg’s justifications for consent fully explains how non-contemporaneous consent is treated in the criminal law. Specifically, Mill’s “self-interest” conception explains the criminal law’s limited recognition of prospective consent, but cannot explain its total rejection of retrospective consent. Conversely, Feinberg’s “sovereign autonomy” conception explains why the criminal law rejects retrospective consent, but cannot explain why the law recognizes irrevocable prospective consent only in limited circumstances. I resolve this dilemma by explaining that Raz’s “autonomy is good” conception is consistent with both the criminal law’s limited recognition of irrevocable prospective consent and its total rejection of retrospective consent. This suggests the existing criminal law embodies Raz’s theory that it is the duty of the state to promote morality, in particular the moral good of individual well-being through living autonomously. In contrast, the criminal law’s treatment of consent would have to be modified if it were to reflect Mill’s “self-interest” conception, or Feinberg’s “sovereign autonomy” conception|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sheila McLean (2010). Autonomy, Consent and the Law. Routledge-Cavendish.
David Archard (2007). Is It Rape? On Acquaintance Rape and Taking Women's Consent Seriously - by Joan McGregor, Making Sense of Sexual Consent - by Mark Cowling & Paul Reynolds, the Logic of Consent, the Diversity and Deceptiveness of Consent as a Defence to Criminal Conduct - by Peter Westen, and Consent to Sexual Relations - by Lan Wertheimer. Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (2):209–221.
Shaun D. Pattinson (2009). Consent and Informational Responsibility. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (3):176-179.
Deborah Bowman (2011). Informed Consent: A Primer for Clinical Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Brian Bix (2010). Contracts. In Franklin G. Miller & Alan Wertheimer (eds.), The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press.
Michelle Madden Dempsey (2013). Victimless Conduct and the Volenti Maxim: How Consent Works. Criminal Law and Philosophy 7 (1):11-27.
William A. Edmundson (2011). Consent and Its Cousins. Ethics 121:335-53.
M. Sheehan (2011). Can Broad Consent Be Informed Consent? Public Health Ethics 4 (3):226-235.
Eric Chwang (2009). A Defense of Subsequent Consent. Journal of Social Philosophy 40 (1):117-131.
Jukka Varelius (2010). On Taylor's Justification of Medical Informed Consent. Bioethics 26 (4):207-214.
Neil C. Manson (2007). Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press.
Matthew Lister (2011). The Legitimating Role of Consent in International Law. Chicago Journal of International Law 11 (2).
Joel Feinberg (1984). The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
David B. Annis (1984). Informed Consent, Autonomy, and the Law. Philosophy Research Archives 10:249-259.
Added to index2011-06-10
Total downloads14 ( #83,117 of 549,084 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,084 )
How can I increase my downloads?