Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1636537
 
 

Footnotes (36)



 


 



Consent is Not a Defense to Battery: A Reply to Professor Bergelson


Luis E. Chiesa


State University of New York at Buffalo Law School

July 8, 2010

Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 2011

Abstract:     
In this essay I argue that, contrary to what most criminal law scholars believe, consent does not operate as a justification that relieves the actor of liability for conduct that admittedly satisfies the offense elements of battery. Rather, I contend that consent is only relevant to battery liability when, in conjunction with other factors, it modifies the definition of the crime in a way that reveals that the defendant’s act does not actually fall within the range of conduct prohibited by the offense. The argument proceeds in three parts.

In Part I, I argue that there are three ways of conceiving the interest sought to be protected by the offense of battery. These approaches provide different accounts of the exculpatory nature of consent in battery cases, none of which is compatible with the claim that consent operates as a justification defense.

In Part II, I argue that, contrary to what several criminal theorists have argued, the offense of battery does not seek to protect personal autonomy. Therefore, I claim that the exculpatory role of consent in cases of battery cannot be explained by claiming that recognizing consent as a defense vindicates the victim’s autonomy. Instead, I suggest that consent is relevant only insofar as it reveals that the infliction of bodily harm was socially acceptable.

In Part III, I argue that consent to battery currently operates as a factor that modifies the definition of the offense in a way that demonstrates that the defendant did not engage in the type of conduct that the legislature desired to prohibit as battery. Furthermore, I claim that the offense of battery seeks to prevent the infliction of non-trivial physical harm in circumstances where the infliction of such harm is not considered a normal occurrence given current societal practices. Consequently, I suggest that consent is relevant in cases of battery only when, in conjunction with other factors, it reveals that the perpetrator’s infliction of bodily harm was a normal occurrence rather than an extraordinary or regrettable event.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 27

Keywords: consent, criminal law, substantive criminal law, battery, consensual boxing, consent to sporting activities, offense, justification, elements of the offense, offense modification defense, defenses, criminal law defenses, assault, socially adequate conduct as a defense

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: July 9, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Chiesa, Luis E., Consent is Not a Defense to Battery: A Reply to Professor Bergelson (July 8, 2010). Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1636537

Contact Information

Luis E. Chiesa (Contact Author)
State University of New York at Buffalo Law School ( email )
715 O'Brian Hall
Buffalo, NY 14260-1100
United States

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 928
Downloads: 110
Download Rank: 145,365
Footnotes:  36

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.359 seconds