Carlos Nino's Conception of Consent in Crime

Diacritica 27 (2):103-124 (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In this paper I discuss the nature of consent in general, and as it applies to Carlos Nino’s consensual theory of punishment. For Nino the criminal’s consent to change her legal-normative status is a form of implied consent. I distinguish three types of implied consent: 1) implied consent which is based on an operative convention (i.e. tacit consent); 2) implied consent where there is no operative convention; 3) “direct consent” to the legal-normative consequences of a proscribed act – this is the consent which Nino employs. I argue that Nino’s conception of consent in crime exhibits many common features of “everyday” consent, which justify that it be classed as a form of (implied) consent. h us, Nino is right to claim that the consent in crime is similar to the consent in contracts and to the consent to assume a risk in tort law.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-10-10
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
41 ( #41,854 of 47,265 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #35,316 of 47,265 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.