Advertisement

Affirmative Consent

  • Kevin ColeEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores the various meanings given to “affirmative consent” to sexual contact. It explains why affirmative-consent standards might trouble retributivists and how the benefits of such standards have been exaggerated.

References

  1. Doe v. Washington and Lee University, 2015 WL 4647996 (W.D. Va. 2015).Google Scholar
  2. State ex rel. K.B., 2013 WL 3340654 (N.J. Appel. Divn. 2013).Google Scholar
  3. State v. Benitez, 2010 WL 4811893 (N.J. Appel. Divn. 2010).Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, Larry. 2014. The ontology of consent. Analytic Philosophy 55: 102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. American Law Institute. 1985. Model penal code. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2015. Model penal code: Sexual assault and related offenses. Discussion draft no. 2. American Law Institute, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  7. Cole, Kevin. 2016. Better sex through criminal law: Proxy crimes, covert negligence, and other difficulties of “affirmative consent” in the ALI’s draft sexual assault provisions. San Diego Law Review 53: 507–577.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2017. Sex and the single malt girl: How voluntary intoxication affects consent. Montana Law Review 78: 155–185.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2018. Real-world criminal law and the norm against punishing the innocent: Two cheers for threshold deontology. In Moral puzzles and legal perplexities, ed. Heidi M. Hurd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ferzan, Kimberly Kessler. 2016. Consent, culpability, and the law of rape. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 13: 397–439.Google Scholar
  11. Ferzan, Kimberly Kessler, and Peter Westen. 2017. How to think like a lawyer about rape. Criminal Law and Philosophy 11: 759–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flack, William F., Jr., Kimberly A. Daubman, Marcia L. Caron, Jenica A. Asadorian, Nicole R. D’Aureli, Shannon N. Gigliotti, Anna T. Hall, Sarah Kiser, and Erin R. Stine. 2007. Risk factors and consequences of unwanted sex among university students: Hooking up, alcohol, and stress response. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 22: 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gersen, Jacob, and Jeannie Suk. 2016. The sex bureaucracy. California Law Review 104: 881–948.Google Scholar
  14. Hornle, Tatjana. 2012. Criminalizing behaviour to protect human dignity. Criminal Law and Philosophy 6: 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hurd, Heidi M. 1996. The moral magic of consent. Legal Theory 2: 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Husak, Douglas. 2016. Ignorance of law: A philosophical inquiry. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2017. Drug proscriptions as proxy crimes. Law and Philosophy 36: 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, K.C., and Stuart Taylor Jr. 2017. The campus rape frenzy: The attack on due process at America’s universities. New York: Encounter Books.Google Scholar
  19. Klein, Ezra. 2014. “Yes means yes” is a terrible law and I completely support it. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6966847/yes-means-yes-is-a-terrible-bill-and-i-completely-support-it. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  20. MacKinnon, Catherine A. 2016. Rape redefined. Harvard Law and Policy Review 10: 431–477.Google Scholar
  21. Moore, Michael S., and Heidi M. Hurd. 2011. Punishing the awkward, the stupid, the weak, and the selfish: The culpability of negligence. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5: 147–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schulhofer, Stephen J. 1998. Unwanted sex. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2017. Reforming the law of rape. Law and Inequality 35: 335–352.Google Scholar
  24. Shaw, Lori E. 2016. Title IX, sexual assault, and the issue of effective consent: Blurred lines—When should “yes” mean “no”? Indiana Law Journal 91: 1363–1423.Google Scholar
  25. Simons, Kenneth W. 1997. Criminal law: When is strict liability just. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 87: 1075–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2006. The conceptual structure of consent in criminal law. Buffalo Criminal Law Review 9: 577–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. The NCHERM Group. 2010. NCHERM model sexual misconduct policy. The NCHERM Group. https://www.ncherm.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/MODELSEXUALMISCONDUCTPOLICY1-10.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  28. ———. 2017. Due process and the sex police. The NCHERM Group. https://www.ncherm.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/TNG-Whitepaper-Final-Electronic-Version.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  29. Tuerkheimer, Deborah. 2015. Rape on and off campus. Emory Law Journal 65: 1–45.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2016. Affirmative consent. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 13: 441–468.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations