The Consent Solution to Punishment and the Explicit Denial Objection

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published 16-06-2010
Miroslav Imbrisevic

Abstract

Recently, David Boonin has put forward several objections to Carlos S. Nino's 'Consensual Theory of Punishment'. In this paper I will defend Nino against the 'explicit denial objection'. I will discuss whether Boonin's interpretation of Nino as a tacit consent theorist is right. I will argue that the offender's consent is neither tacit nor express, but a special category of implicit consent. Further, for Nino the legal-normative consequences of an act (of crime) are 'irrevocable', i.e. one cannot (expressly and successfully) deny liability to them. I will suggest an explanation for Nino's irrevocability claim.

How to Cite

Imbrisevic, M. (2010). The Consent Solution to Punishment and the Explicit Denial Objection. THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 25(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.636
Abstract 806 | PDF Downloads 467

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

Carlos S. Nino, consensual theory of punishment, explicit denial objection, tacit consent, irrevocability

Section
MONOGRAPHIC SECTION