M. Beth Valentine

In “Abetting a Crime,” Husak puzzles over what, exactly, abettors are held liable for. Having dismissed the proposal that derivative liability can ground the imposition of punishment, he then turns to fair labeling concerns to further highlight problems surrounding current Anglo-American complicity laws. The best moral solution, according to Husak, is a drastic but ultimately unworkable revising of our laws. Loosely, he presents a two-horned dilemma: the laws are either insufficiently detailed to respect fair labeling practices or too detailed to be workable. Though I agree with his assessment derivative liability, I advocate for a more optimistic outlook. Specifically, I advocate for having multiple new crimes of “abetting _____,” where the blank is filled in by reference to a particular existing crime for which we think it should be wrongful to help another. This framework offers significant advantages over current complicity laws while escaping the two pitfalls Husak highlights.

The law and society occasionally impute consent to an agent despite a clear lack of actual consent. A common type of such ‘fictitious consent’ is constructive consent. In this practice, we treat an agent as if she consented to Φ because she did Ψ. By examining how constructive consent operates in law and daily life, I show that our treatment of agents in these cases bears no normatively relevant resemblance to consent because it is grounded in values and concerns other than autonomy. Thus, the practice may diminish the very autonomy consent proper seeks to promote. Hiding this potential for conflict creates the risk moral concerns will not be appropriately balanced when deciding on the permissibility of an action. We thus ought to be explicit that such cases don’t involve consent and its common justification.