It’s Good to be Autonomous: Prospective Consent, Retrospective Consent, and the Foundation of Consent in the Criminal Law
- Jonathan Witmer-Rich
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
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.
- Anderson, M. J. (2003). Marital immunity, intimate relationships, and improper inferences: A new law on sexual offenses by intimates. Hastings Law Journal, 54, 1465.
- Blackstone, W. (1769). Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4.
- Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York: Random House.
- Chwang, E. (2009). A defense of subsequent consent. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40, 1. CrossRef
- Feinberg, J. (1989). Harm to self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Fletcher, G. P. (1998). Basic concepts of criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hale, M. (1847). Historia Placitorum Coronae (1st Am. ed.).
- Hasday, J. E. (2000). Contest and consent: A legal history of marital rape. California Law Review, 88, 1373. CrossRef
- Homer. The Odyssey, Book XII.
- Hurd, H. (1996). The moral magic of consent. Legal Theory, 2, 121. CrossRef
- Husak, D. (2010). Paternalism and consent. In A. Wertheimer & F. G. Miller (Eds.), The ethics of consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hyams, K. (2011). When consent doesn’t work: A rights-based case for the limits on consent’s capacity to legitimize. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 8, 110. CrossRef
- Kleinig, J. (2010). The nature of consent. In F. G. Miller & A. Wertheimer (Eds.), The ethics of consent: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- LaFave, W., & Scott, A. (1972). Handbook on criminal law. St. Paul, MI: West.
- Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty.
- Miller, F. G., & Wertheimer, A. (2010). Preface to a theory of consent transactions: Beyond valid consent. In F. G. Miller & A. Wertheimer (Eds.), The ethics of consent: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Raz, J. (1988). The morality of freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Reiley, E. H. (1999–2010). Security interests in personal property. Clark Boardman Callaghan.
- Regan, D. (1983). Paternalism, freedom, identity, and commitment. In R. Sartorius (Ed.), Paternalism. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
- Simmons, A. J. (2010). Political obligations and consent. In F. G. Miller & A. Wertheimer (Eds.), The ethics of consent: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- VanDeVeer, D. (1986). Paternalistic intervention: The moral bounds of benevolence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Wald, P. M. (1995). The rhetoric of results and the results of rhetoric: Judicial writings. University of Chicago Law Review, 62, 1371. CrossRef
- Wertheimer, A. (2003). Consent to sexual relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Westen, P. (2004). The logic of consent: The diversity and deceptiveness of consent as a defense to criminal conduct. Aldershot: Ashgate.
- 65 Am. Jur. 2d Rape § 7.
- Model Penal Code, § 213.1, at 343, Comment (1980).
- Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, General Assembly Resolution 48/104, U.N. G.A.O.R., 48th Session, U.N. Doc. A/RES/48/104 (1993) 217.
- Battle v. State, 414 A.2d 1266, 1269 (Md. 1980).
- First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. State, 233 S.E.2d 861 (Ga. App. 1977).
- Holsey v. State, 61 S.E. 836, 836 (Ga. App. 1908).
- In re Estate of Peters, 765 A.2d 468, 474 (Vt. 2000).
- People v. De Stefano, 467 N.Y.S.2d 506, 512 (N.Y. Co. Ct. 1983).
- People v. M.D., 595 N.E.2d 702, 710-11 (Ill. App. 2 Dist. 1992).
- Pollard v. State, 2 Iowa 567, 1856 WL 131, *3 (1856).
- Regina v. Barrow, 11 Cox Crim. Cas. 191, 192 (1868).
- Regina v. Clarke, 6 Cox Crim. Cas. 412, 413 (1854).
- Regina v. R.,  UKHL 12 (House of Lords).
- Shunn v. State, 742 P.2d 775, 778 (Wyo. 1987).
- Sperry v. ITT Commercial Finance Corp., 799 S.W.2d 871 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990).
- State v. Hartigan, 32 Vt. 607, 1860 WL 4943 (1860).
- State v. Ward, 28 S.E.2d 785, 787 (S.C. 1944).
- Tyson v. Trigg, 50 F.3d 436, 448 (7th Cir. 1995).
- United States v. Moore, 10 M.J. 354, 355 (C.M.A. 1983).
- It’s Good to be Autonomous: Prospective Consent, Retrospective Consent, and the Foundation of Consent in the Criminal Law
Criminal Law and Philosophy
Volume 5, Issue 3 , pp 377-398
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Criminal law
- Prospective consent
- Retrospective consent
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University, 2121 Euclid Ave., LB 138, Cleveland, OH, 44115, USA