Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distinguishing general theory, doctrine and evidence in criminal responsibility: a response to Lacey

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Criminal Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. I questioned whether she was previously sufficiently sensitive to this idea in an earlier paper, Tadros (2002).

  2. See Tadros (2005) for an analysis of the correspondence principle that suggests why this might be the case at greater length.

  3. Lacey, 2007, DOI 10.1007/s11572-006-9025-7, this issue, p.235.

  4. For critique of the Hegelian and Marxist supposition that this is so, see Cohen (2002).

  5. [2003] UKHL 50.

  6. This is arguably a justification for the rules on hearsay evidence.

  7. Lacey, 2007, DOI 10.1007/s11572-006-9025-7, this issue, p. 243.

  8. Lacey, 2007, DOI 10.1007/s11572-006-9025-7, this issue, p. 243.

  9. Lacey, 2007, DOI 10.1007/s 11572-006-9025-7, this issue, p. 234.

References

  • Cohen, G. A. (2002). If you’re an egalitarian how come you’re so rich? Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, R. A. (2006). ‘Answering for Crime’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 106, 85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, L. (1997). Criminal law, tradition and legal order: Crime and the genius of scots law 1747 to the present. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferzan, K. (2001) ‘Opaque Recklessness’. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 91, 597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, J. (2003). ‘The Mark of Responsibility’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 23, 157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, N. (2001a). ‘Responsibility and modernity in criminal law’. Journal of Political Philosophy, 9, 249. .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, N. (2001b) ‘In search of the responsible subject: History, philosophy and criminal law theory’. Modern Law Review, 64, 350–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, N. (2007). ‘Space, time and function: intersecting principles of responsibility across the terrain of criminal justice’. Criminal Law and Philosophy, this issue, DOI 10.1007/s11572-006-9025-7.

  • Norrie, A. (2001). Crime, reason and history: A critical introduction to criminal law (2nd ed.). London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay, P. (2006) ‘The responsible subject as citizen: Criminal law, democracy and the welfare state’. Modern Law Review, 69, 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadros, V. (2002). ‘The system of the criminal law’. Legal Studies, 22, 448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadros, V. (2005). Criminal Responsibility. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadros, V. (2007). ‘Rethinking the presumption of innocence’. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 1 (2), 193–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadros, V. & Tierney, S. (2004). ‘The presumption of innocence and the Human Rights Act’. Modern Law Review, 67, 402–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Warwick, Conventry, CV4 74L, UK

    Victor Tadros

Authors
  1. Victor Tadros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victor Tadros.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tadros, V. Distinguishing general theory, doctrine and evidence in criminal responsibility: a response to Lacey. Criminal Law, Philosophy 1, 259–265 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-006-9023-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-006-9023-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation