Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Most offenders do not in fact tacitly consent to their se... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Most offenders do not in fact tacitly consent to their sentences.

    Justice & Punishment
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Consent requires a voluntary, uncoerced agreement, but most offenders act under conditions of poverty, addiction, or social duress that vitiate voluntariness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rawls argued that fair social cooperation presupposes just background conditions; where institutions are unjust, no tacit consent to their penalties can be inferred.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A person cannot meaningfully consent to a legal order whose terms she had no genuine role in shaping, as marginalized offenders typically lack such political agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Tacit consent, as Hume observed, is a philosophical fiction when exit from the relevant jurisdiction is practically impossible for the vast majority of citizens.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The inferential gap between remaining subject to law and consenting to penal consequences is too wide to bridge without an explicit, informed acceptance of specific sanctions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Most offenders are unaware either that their acts are subject to punishment or of the severity of the punishment to which they may be liable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.For someone to have consented to be subject to certain consequences of an act, she must know of these consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Justice & Punishment

    Related

    A person cannot meaningfully consent to a legal order whose terms she had no gen...Consent requires a voluntary, uncoerced agreement, but most offenders act under ...For someone to have consented to be subject to certain consequences of an act, s...Most offenders are unaware either that their acts are subject to punishment or o...
    +3 moreShow less
    Rawls argued that fair social cooperation presupposes just background conditions...Tacit consent, as Hume observed, is a philosophical fiction when exit from the r...The inferential gap between remaining subject to law and consenting to penal con...

    Similar

    Most offenders are unaware either that their acts are subject to punis...81%Restriction is only warranted when the offense is hard to avoid, expre...78%The offender himself would, as a rational agent or reasonable citizen,...77%The punishment of those who commit crimes is permissible.76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: legal-punishment
    View source passageHide passage
    Another view holds that punishment does not violate offenders’ rights insofar as they consent to their punishment (see Nino 1983). The consent view holds that when a person voluntarily commits a crime while knowing the consequences of doing so, she thereby consents to these consequences. This is not to say that she explicitly consents to being punished, but rather than by her voluntary action she tacitly consents to be subject to what she knows are the consequences. Notice that, like the forfeiture view, the consent view is agnostic regarding the positive aim of punishment: it purports to tell...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit