Notes
Fletcher also adopted a similar methodology in Rethinking Criminal Law (Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown 1978) where he argued that the criminal law is a diverse set of co-existing principles of responsibility. He used examples from a broad historical perspective and comparative canvas to identify patterns of responsibility. Fletcher adopted a more doctrinal approach, whereas Lacey has adopted a socio-historical analysis of broader causes in the institutional structure. Her premise is that legal doctrine does not exist in a social vacuum.
References
Fletcher, George. Rethinking Criminal Law (1978 reprint, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000).
Lacey, Nicola. Women, Crime, and Character (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008).
Moore, Michael. Placing Blame: A Theory of the Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010).
Raz, Joseph. From Normativity to Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011).
Tadros, Victor. Criminal Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005).
Thomson, Edward Palmer. Whigs and Hunters (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1975).
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Blue and Brown Books (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1958).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bansal, D. Nicola Lacey: In Search of Criminal Responsibility: Ideas, Interests, and Institutions. Criminal Law, Philosophy 11, 861–865 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-016-9406-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-016-9406-5