The Journal EJprob recently published a special issue on consent in sentencing. The EPR (2010) refer to consent on numerous occasions, and in most legal systems consent is required at the sentencing stage. However, in many cases, the alternative is custody, which raises concerns over how freely consent is given and whether it is a mere formal exercise. Social scientists have tried to theorise consent building on compliance, legitimacy of justice, or notions such as therapeutic alliance and offender agency. Some have deplored the existence of a ‘contractual governance’.
This article shall argue that a renewed analysis of contract law has the potential to respect offenders’ agency and their right to govern their own lives, whilst taking stock of their need for treatment and compensating for their vulnerable condition. It shows that more rather than less contract is needed in order to avoid both punitive governance and neo-paternalism.
Åkerstrøm AndersenN (2007) Creating the client who can create himself and his own fate – the tragedy of the citizens’ contract. Qualitative Sociology Review3(2): 119–143.
2.
AnagnostakiM (2014) Consent and cooperation in the Greek context: Rhetoric and praxis. Ejprob6(3): 225–241.
3.
BaconMSeddonT (2013) The contractual governance of drug users in treatment. International Journal of Drug Policy24(5): 379–384.
4.
BarnettRE (2011) Contract is not promise; contract is consent. Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 11–29.
5.
BeatsonJBurrowsA (2010) Anson’s Law of Contracts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
BeauchampTL (2010) Autonomy and consent. In: MillerFGWertheimerA (eds) The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 55–78.
7.
BennSI (1988) A Theory of Freedom. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
8.
BergJWAppelbaumPSLidzCWParkerLS (2001) Informed Consent. Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn.
9.
BergelsonV (2010) Consent to harm. In: MillerFGWertheimerA (eds) The Ethics of Consent. Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 163–192.
10.
BerthiauD (1997) Le principe d’égalité et le droit civil des contrats. Paris: L.G.D.J.
11.
BixBH (2010) Contracts. In: MillerFGWertheimerA (eds) The Ethics of Consent. Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 251–279.
12.
BlondetLGuiraudC (2014) Evaluation des difficultés en langage oral chez des mineurs incarcérés et risques encourus dans le déroulement de la détention. Mémoire de Capacité en Orthophonie [speech specialist certificate thesis], University of Lyon, p. 1.
13.
BottomsAE (2001) Compliance and community penalties. In: BottomsAGelsthorpeLRexS (eds) Community Penalties: Change and Challenges. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 87–116.
14.
BurdickWL (1938) The Principles of Roman Law and their Relations to Modern Law. Rochester, NY: The Lawyer Co-operative Publishing Co. (reed. 2012 by The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. Clark, NJ).
15.
CantonR (2012) The point of probation. On effectiveness, human rights and the virtues of obliquity. Criminology and Criminal Justice13(5): 577–593.
16.
CantonR (2014) Yes, no, possibly, maybe: Community sanctions, consent and cooperation. Ejprob6(3) : 209–224.
17.
CarbasseJ-M (2014) Histoire du droit pénal et de la justice criminelle. Paris: P.U.F.
18.
CasorlaF (1999) Du consensualisme en prison, en droit pénitentiaire français. Revue Pénitentiaire3: 383–389.
19.
CohenS (1979) ‘The punitive city’: Notes on the dispersal of social control. Contemporary Crises3(4): 339–363.
20.
CohenS (1985) Visions of Social Control. Oxford: Polity Press.
21.
CrawfordA (2003) ‘Contractual governance’ of deviant behaviour. Journal of Law and Society30(4): 479–505.
22.
Danti-JuanM (2001) Le consentement et la sanction. In: Collectif, Mélanges offerts à Pierre Couvrat: la sanction du droit. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 367–381.
23.
De BrocaA (2014) Le soin est une éthique. Paris : Editions Sélie Arslan.
24.
De LarminatX (2012) La probation en quête d’approbation. L’exécution des peines en milieu ouvert entre gestion des risques et gestion des flux. PhD thesis, Cesdip-University of Versailles-Saint Quentin.
25.
DelebecquePPansierF-J (2013) Droit des obligations. Contrat et quasi-contrat. Paris: LexisNexis.
26.
DemogueR (1923) Traité des obligations en général. Paris: Arthur Rousseau.
27.
DescarpentriesF (2005) Le consentement aux soins en psychiatrie. Paris: l’Harmattan.
28.
DigardL (2015) Compliance and desistance. Contemporary approaches to increasing parole compliance: The Roles of structures and relationships. In: Herzog-EvansM (ed.), Offender Release and Supervision: The Role of Courts and the Use of Discretion. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 281–307.
29.
DindoS (2011) Sursis avec mise à l’épreuve: la peine méconnue. Une analyse des pratiques de probation en France. Etude pour la Direction de l’administration pénitentiaire, bureau PMJ1, May.
30.
DomatJ (1691) Les lois civiles dans leur ordre naturel. Volumes I and II. Paris : Jean-Baptiste Coignard.
31.
DumontD (2011) Activation rime-t-elle nécessairement avec stigmatisation? Une mise en perspective critique du procès de l’Etat social actif. Droit et Société78(2): 447–471.
32.
DurnescuI (2011) Pains of probation: Effective practice and human rights. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology55(4): 530–545.
33.
DworkinG (1972) Paternalism. The Monist56(1): 64–85.
34.
Evans-JonesR (2000) Roman law in Britain. In: MantheUKrampeC (eds) Quaestiones Iuris. Festschrift für Joseph Georg Wolf zum 70. Freiburger Rechtsgeschichtliche Abhandlungen. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 83–110.
35.
Fabre-MagnanM (1992) De l’obligation d’information dans les contrats. Essai d’une théorie. Paris: L.G.D.J.
36.
FadenRRBeauchampTL in collaboration with KingNM (1986) A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
FarrallSHunterBSharpeGCalverleyA (2014) Criminal Careers in Transition. The Social Context of Desistance from Crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
FieldC (1981) Contract as Promise. Theory of Contractual Obligation. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
FieldLMCalvertJD (2015) Informed consent procedures with cognitively impaired patients: A review of ethics and best practices. Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences. Epub ahead of print: DOI: 10.1111/pcn.12289.
40.
FriedmanM (1986) Autonomy and the split-level self. The Southern Journal of Philosophy24(1): 19–35.
41.
GhestinJ (1963) La notion d’erreur dans le droit positif actuel. 1st edn. 2013. Paris: L.G.D.J.
42.
GillesD (1994) La pensée juridique de Jean Domat. Du Grand siècle au Code civil. PhD Thesis de droit, University of Aix-Marseille II.
43.
GoffmanE (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York: Doubleday.
44.
GounotE (1912) Le principe de l’autonomie de la volonté en droit privé: étude critique de l’individualisme juridique. PhD Thesis, Dijon.
45.
Herzog-EvansM (1994) La gestion du comportement du détenu. L’apparence légaliste du droit pénitentiaire. PhD Thesis, Poitiers (published in 1998 as: La gestion du comportement du détenu. Essai de droit pénitentiaire. Paris: l’Harmattan).
46.
Herzog-EvansM (2012) The six month limit to community measures ‘under prison registry’: A study of professional perception. Ejprob4(2): 23–45.
47.
Herzog-EvansM (2014a) French third sector participation in probation and reentry: Complementary or competitive?Ejprob6(1): 42–56.
48.
Herzog-EvansM (2014b) French Reentry Courts and Rehabilitation: Mister Jourdain of Desistance. Paris: l’Harmattan.
49.
Herzog-EvansM (ed.) (2015) Conclusion. Offender Release and Supervision: The Role of Courts and the Use of Discretion. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 565–502.
50.
HorvathAOGreenbergLS (eds) (1994) The Working Alliance. Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Wiley.
51.
HusakD (2010) Paternalism and consent. In: MillerFGWertheimerA (eds) The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 107–130.
52.
IbbetsonD (1999) A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
KaminskiDSnackenSVan de KershoveM (2007) Mutations dans le champ des peines et de leur exécution. Déviance et Société31(4): 487–504.
54.
KantE (1780) The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. English trans. 1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
KleinigJ (2010) The Nature of consent. In: MillerFGWertheimerA (eds) The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–24.
56.
La VigneMVan RybroekG (2014) ‘He got in my face so I shot him’. How defendants’ language impairments impair attorney-client relationship. CUNY Law Review17: 69–121.
57.
Lucas de LeyssacM-P (1981) L’escroquerie par le simple mensonge?Recueil Dalloz, chronique no. 17.
MalinvaudPFenouilletDMekkiM (2014) Droit des obligations. Paris: LexisNexis.
60.
MallardiV (2005) Le origini del consenso informato [The origins of informed consent]. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital., 25: 312–327.
61.
MarunaSLeBelTP (2003) Welcome home? Examining the ‘reentry court’ concept from a strengths-based perspective. Western Criminology Review4(2): 97–107.
62.
MarzanoM (2006) Je consens, donc je suis. Paris: P.U.F.
63.
MayDCWoodPB (2010) Ranking Correctional Punishments. Views from Offenders, Practitioners, and the Public. Carolina: Academic Press.
64.
McNeillFRobinsonG (2013) Liquid legitimacy and community sanctions. In: CrawfordAHucklesbyA (eds) Legitimacy and Compliance in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 116–137.
65.
MenuS (2004) La volonté du condamné dans l’exécution de sa peine. PhD Thesis, University of Poitiers.
66.
MillerFGWertheimerA (eds) The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
67.
MistrettaP (2011) L’illusion du consentement du délinquant à l’acte médical et aux soins en droit pénal. Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal82: 19–39.
68.
Molière (1673) The Imaginary Invalid [Le Malade Imaginaire].
69.
MorgensternC (2015) Dominant court decision-making: Germany. Conditional release in Germany – who decides? And who really does? In: Herzog-EvansM (ed.) Offender Release and Supervision: The Role of Courts and the Use of Discretion. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 109–135.
70.
MorgensternCRobinsonG (2014) Consent and cooperation of the unfree: Introduction to the special issue. EJprob6(3): 203–208.
71.
NellisM (2013) Surveillance, stigma and spatial constraints. The ethical challenges of electronic monitoring. In: NellisMBeyensKKaminskiD (eds) Electronically Monitored Punishment. International and Critical Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 193–210.
72.
NelkenD (1987) The use of ‘contracts’ as a social work technique. Current Legal Problems, 40(1): 207–232.
73.
NelkenD (1988) Social work contracts and social control. In: MatthewsR (ed.). Informal Justice?London: SAGE, pp. 108–122.
74.
NelkenD (1989) Discipline and punish: Some notes on the margin. The Howard Journal28(4): 245–254.
75.
PadfieldNvan Zyl SmitDDünkelF (eds) (2010) Release from Prison. European Policy and Practice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
76.
PéchillonE (1999) Sécurité et Droit du Service Public Pénitentiaire. Paris: L.G.D.J.
77.
PichonnazP (2008) Fondements romains du droit privé. Zürich : Swizerland, Schulthess.
78.
PinX (2002) Le consentement en matière pénale. PhD Thesis, Grenoble, Paris, L.G.D.J.
79.
PothierRJ (1761) Traité des obligations. Paris: Siffrein.
80.
PoulalionJL (2008) Le système pénitentiaire à l’épreuve des résistances carcérales. PhD Thesis, Nants (published in 2012 as Les résistances carcérales. Du comment au pourquoi. Paris: l’Harmattan).
81.
RampelbergR-M (2005) Repères romains pour le droit européen des contrats. Paris: L.G.D.J.
82.
RanouilV (1980) L’Autonomie de la volonté: Naissance et évolution d’un concept. Paris: P.U.F.
83.
RaynorP (1985) Social Work, Justice and Control. 2nd edn.1993. Oxford: Blackwell.
84.
RaynorP (2014) Consent to probation in England and Wales: How it was abolished, and why it matters. Ejprob6(3): 296–307.
85.
RaynorPUgwudikePVanstoneM (2014) The impact of skills in probation work: A reconviction study. Criminology and Criminal Justice14(2): 235–249.
86.
RenautMH (2005) Histoire du droit pénal. Paris: Ellipses.
87.
RobinsonGMcNeillF (2008) Exploring the dynamics of compliance with community penalties. Theoretical Criminology12(4): 431–449.
88.
RobinsonG.McNeillF (2010) The dynamics of compliance with offender supervision. In: McNeillFRaynorPTrotterC (eds) Offender Supervision. New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 367–383.
89.
RobinsonGMcNeillFMarunaS (2013) Punishment in society: The improbable persistence of probation and other community sanctions and measures. In: SimonJSparksR (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Punishment and Society. London: SAGE: pp. 321–340.
90.
RoseNMillerP (1986) The Power of Psychiatry. London: Polity Press.
91.
RossWD (1930) The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
92.
SaleillesR (1898) L’individualisation de la peine. Etude de criminalité sociale. Paris: F. Alcan (reed. 2003, by BookSurge Publishing, with a pref. by G. Tarde – in English (trans.): Individualization of Punishment. Petterson Smith, 1968).
93.
ScheirsV (2013) De straftoemetingsrechtbank aan het werk. Een etnografisch onderzoek naar haar interacties, beslissingsprocessen en –praktijken [The sentence implementation court at work. An ethnographic research into their interaction, decision-making practices and processes]. PhD Thesis in Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
94.
SchulzF (1946) History of Roman Legal Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
95.
SirdifieldC (2012) The prevalence of mental health disorders amongst offenders on probation: A literature review. Journal of Mental Health21(5): 485–498.
96.
SteenSLacockTMcKinzeyS (2012) Unsettling the discourse of punishment? Competing narratives of reentry and the possibilities for change. Punishment and Society14(1): 29–50.
97.
SučićIRicijašNGlavak-TkalićR (2014) Informed consent as a requirement for probation work with (in)voluntary clients: Probationers and probation officers’ perspectives. Ejprob6(3): 260–277.
98.
Tribunal de Grande Instance de Créteil (Créteil Tribunal)Les obstacles à l’aménagement des peines. L’impact des courtes périodes de détention sur la mise en œuvre des aménagements de peine, Rapport, 11mars2014. Available at: http://herzog-evans.com/les-courtes-peines-et-les-amenagements-de-peine/
99.
TrotterC (2015) Working with Involuntary Clients. A Guide to Practice. 3rd edn.Abingdon: Routledge.
100.
TylerTRFaganJ (2008) Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law6: 231–275.
101.
UgwudikeP (2010) Compliance with community penalties: The importance of interactional dynamics. In: McNeillFRaynorPTrotterC (eds) Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice. Cullompton: Willan, pp. 325–343.
102.
VillardelF (1996) Doit-on dire la vérité au patient? Le paternalisme en gastroentérologie. Hépato-gastro3(5): 335–337.
103.
WalineM (1949) L’individualisme et le droit. Paris: Domat et Montchrestien.
104.
WeaverBBarryM (2014) Managing high risk offenders in the community: Compliance, cooperation and consent in a climate of concern. Ejprob6(3): 278–295.
105.
WexlerD (2005) Therapeutic jurisprudence and the rehabilitative role of the criminal defense lawyer. St. Thomas Law Review17(3): 743–773.
106.
ZimmermannR (1997) The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
