Does response D answer the question? response D In this case, consent should not be a defense to charges of murder, even if the victim explicitly consented to the act. According to what we read, consent doesn't matter when someone is seriously hurt or killed because those actions are morally wrong because they don't matter to anyone else. The law understood that someone could not agree to their own death. This showed that society respected human dignity and public order. The chapter also says that agreement is not a defense when there is a child involved, when the person is mentally ill, or when the behavior is forced. When crimes are as bad as murder, mutilation, or cannibalism, letting consent be a defense would go against the law's job of protecting life and upholding the highest standards, and the person who did the crime would have to be punished