Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:36:43.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

For a Negative, Normative Model of Consent, With a Comment on Preference-Skepticism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2009

Donald Dripps
Donald Dripps
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Let me begin by admitting that I am wary of any comprehensive definition of consent. This bias stems from my professional concentration on criminal law, in which nouons of freedom and responsibility play vital roles in a wide range of contexts. In each context, however, one discovers that freedom means something different. A voluntary act is any bodily movement not caused by external force or nervous disorder. On the other hand, a voluntary act, however horrific its results, ordinarily may be punished only if the actor was subjectively aware that the act was wrong. In any event, a voluntary act may be excused as the product of duress if another person procures the actor's cooperation in the crime by an illegal threat that would overcome the resistance of a person of ordinary firmness.

Type
Articles
Information
Legal Theory , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 113 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See, e.g., LaFave, W. and Scott, A.. 1 Substantive Criminal Law § 3.2 (1986).Google Scholar

2. See, e.g., id. § 3.4

3. See id. § 5.3.

4. See Dripps, D., Beyond Rape: An Essay on the Difference Between the Presence of Force and the Absence of Consent, 92 Colum. L. Rev. 1780 (1992).Google Scholar

5. See generally LaFave, W. and Israel, J., 1 Criminal Procedure ch. 6 (1984 and 1991 pocket part).Google Scholar

6. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar

7. See Seidman, L. M.. Brown and Miranda, 80 Cal. L. Rev. 673, 743–47 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. See LaFave, and Israel, , supra note 5, § 6.2 at 444–49.Google Scholar

9. See Dripps, , supra note 4, at 1783–1785Google Scholar; Schulhofer, S., Taking Sexual Autonomy Seriously: Rape Law and Beyond, 11 Law & Phil. 35, 36–41 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. See Player, M.A., Employment Discrimination Law 3 (1988)Google Scholar (“Even states which recognize limits on the employer's right to discharge construe the limits as narrow ‘exceptions’ to the usual common law rule allowing termination of at-will employees”).

11. See id. at 249.

12. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 15.

13. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).Google Scholar

14. See LaFave, and Scott, , supra note 1, § 4.2.Google Scholar

15. In adopting a normative perspective on consent, I follow Wertheimer, A., Coercion (1987).Google Scholar

16. For a thoroughly reductionist account, see Westen, P., The Empty Idea of Equality, 95 Harv. L. Rev. 537 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. See Sunstein, C., Legal Interference with Private Preferences, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1129 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sunstein, C.. Preferences and Politics, 20 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 1 (1991).Google Scholar

18. See West, R., Authority, Autonomy, and Choice: The Role of Consent in the Moral and Political Visions of Franz Kafka and Richard Posner, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 384 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. See Unger, R., Knowledge and Politics 52–53 (1975).Google Scholar

20. See George, R., Making Men Morai. (1993).Google Scholar

21. See Sunstien, , supra note 17, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. at 1145–66.Google Scholar

22. See Hovenkamp, H., The Limits of Preference-Based Legal Policy, 89 Nw. U. L. Rev. 4, 49 (1994).Google Scholar

23. See West, , supra note 18.Google Scholar

24. See Mill, J.S., On Liberty, in in On Liberty and Other Writings 5 83–93Google Scholar (Collini, S. ed., 1989).Google Scholar

25. Id. at 56–74.

26. Id. at 59–60.

27. Id. at 83–84.

28. Cf. Sunstein, , supra note 17, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. at 1132Google Scholar (“The republican conception of politics treats the system of governance as a collective version of this process, in which citizens select ends through political participation. Under such a regime, purely private preferences are understood to be shaped by circumstances; they are social constructs”) (footnotes omitted).

29. See Dripps, , supra note 4, 1785–92 (1992).Google Scholar

30. See George, , supra note 20, at 156–57.Google Scholar

31. See West, R., Legitimating the Illegitimate: A Comment on Beyond Rape, 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1442, 1455–58 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar