On Wrongs and Crimes: Does Consent Require Only an Attempt to Communicate?

5Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In Wrongs and Crimes, Victor Tadros clarifies the debate about whether consent needs to be communicated by separating the question of whether consent requires expressive behaviour from the question of whether it requires “uptake” in the form of comprehension by the consent-receiver. Once this distinction is drawn, Tadros argues both that consent does not require uptake and that consent does not require expressive behaviour that provides evidence to the consent-receiver. As a result, Tadros takes the view that consent requires an attempt to communicate, but nothing more. While I have found Tadros’s arguments for this conclusion intriguing and challenging, I am yet to be persuaded by them. In this essay, I try to say why.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dougherty, T. (2019). On Wrongs and Crimes: Does Consent Require Only an Attempt to Communicate? Criminal Law and Philosophy, 13(3), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-018-9473-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free