Jump to content

Talk:Consent (criminal law)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed

[edit]

Removed the line "Rather, the disease was inflicted because the carrier knew the partner would not consent had she been aware of the disease" from the section on sexual transmission of disease as I can't see anything in the judgement that supports this. They gave evidence that they would not have consented, but did he know this? Lovingboth 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do professional sports fall in this discussion

[edit]

While we could discuss American football, soccer, hockey or even basketball, lets take the most obvious example, professional boxing.

If a boxer strikes his opponent in the face with the intent to bruise the brain and cause unconsciousness, is that boxer liable for assault?

If so why are all winning boxers not prosecuted, and if not, why not under existing law?

Tracy

Several legal treatises from England and the 19th century deal with this specifically in regards to dueling. First, no one can consent to an illegal act. Although two participants consent to duel with swords, neither is a legally effective consent because the act is illegal. There is a Latin term for this, but it escapes me at the moment. Because fighting is illegal, boxing matches require a license from the state. This absolves liability from the participants and spectators. Second, consent may be to a particular form of assault. A football player may imply consent to a tackle because of an agreement to play by the rules of the game, but would not consent to a punch after a play. The law discusses these points, and it would be good for the article to expand on them. Legis Nuntius (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Suggest that 'maim' should link to the article mayhem (crime), although I thought that maim was the verb form.James500 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support for move. I think Anthony Appleyard's suggested addition is a good one, sewing up any ambiguity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Consent (criminal) → Consent (law) — Per discussion here. "Xxxx (criminal)" is confusing because there are pages like Larry Davis (criminal). — Jafeluv (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support, but not because Consent (criminal) "is confusing because there are pages like Larry Davis (criminal)" -- no one is going to be fooled into thinking "Consent" is a criminal like Larry Davis -- but because criminal makes no sense here. I mean, it's not "criminal consent", or "consent of a criminal", or even "consent while committing a crime" (if there was consent, it was not a crime). At best, it means consent as defined in criminal law, but there the more important and sufficient context is law. The topic here is the legal definition of consent, which is why it should be dabbed with "law". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First paragraph

[edit]

Usually, the first paragraph says what the article is about, if I didn't know what consent was about before start reading, I would say it "may be a excuse." 200.144.37.3 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move again : to Consent (criminal law in the United Kingdom)

[edit]

This article, as it deals with the United Kingdom only (and is tagged as such), really needs a title change. Americans and people of other countries will not find this information useful at all for where they live. Thus, people should not be redirected to this article as though it covers consent for all. Until there is such an article, or at least one covering a few more countries, this article's title should reflect what it is about -- Criminal law in the United Kingdom. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support - I support this move only:

(1) if a pan-jurisdictional article is created in addition to this one; and

(2) whoever is responsible for the move personally goes through the encyclopedia and makes sure that every link that currently points at this article points at the right article.

If you are not planning to create a pan-jurisdictional article in addition to this one, you could just add information about other countries to this article.James500 (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably make a move proposal, as was done above, and leave it up to the mover. Not sure when I'll do it, though. I've been somewhat lazy on Wikipedia lately. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note: If this article is moved to the proposed name, instead of just creating a new article for all this material, there will be no need for a person to go through the encyclopedia and make sure that every link that currently points at this article points at the right article...considering that the redirect will do that for us. Flyer22 (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page move would create double redirects. And single redirects have a tendency to turn into double redirects.James500 (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. But all the mover really needs to do is fix the double redirects, which is what every move shows the mover anyway (a message pops up telling them to fix this if there are any, something I know from experience). If you meant double redirects by your "every link that currently points at this article points at the right article," then disregard my earlier comment about it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undercover Sex

[edit]

When assets work undercover they are pretending to be someone else to gain information. If they use the fake identity to trick people into sex is that consent obtained through deception? Examples are Anna Chapman a Russia sleeper agent, and Mark Kennedy an undercover policeman. 31.185.241.136 (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

unsure why the discussion is at Consent#Sexual_activity and not in this article. Have opened a discussion at the other talk page at Talk:Consent#Why_is_discussion_of_consent.2Fsexual_here.3F - please comment there if you like. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Consent (criminal law). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of defense vs defence?

[edit]

Can someone tell me why this page spells it "defense" half the time and "defence" the other half? Can we please get a consistent spelling based on the first non-stub version of the article? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the earliest edits for the article used "defense" so I'll go with that. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Consent_(criminal_law)&oldid=1201109309"