Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 1–26 | Cite as

The Question of Evil and Feminist Legal Scholarship



In this article, we argue that feminist legal scholars should engage directly and explicitly with the question of evil. Part I summarises key facts surrounding the prosecution and life-long imprisonment of Myra Hindley, one of a tiny number of women involved in multiple killings of children in recent British history. Part II reviews a range of commentaries on Hindley, noting in particular the repeated use of two narratives: the first of these insists that Hindley is an icon of female evil; the second, less popular one, seeks to position her as a victim. In Part III, the article broadens out and we explain why we think feminist legal scholars should look at the question of evil. In large part, the emphasis is on anticipating the range of possible objections to this argument, and on trying to answer these objections by showing how a focus on evil might benefit feminist legal thinking – specifically in relation to the categories of perpetrator and victim and, more generally, in relation to laws motivated by a desire to secure women’s human rights.


agency evil feminist legal scholarship victims women who kill 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arendt H., (1994). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Penguin, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballinger A., (2000). Dead Woman Walking: Executed Women in England and Wales 1900–1955. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar On B.-A., (2003). “Terrorism, Evil, and Everyday Depravity”. Hypatia 18:157–163Google Scholar
  4. Bell C., Fox M., (1996). “Telling Stories of Women Who Kill”. Social & Legal Studies 5:471–494Google Scholar
  5. Bell V., (2005). “On the Critique of Secular Ethics: An Essay with Flannery O’Connor and Hannah Arendt”. Theory, Culture & Society 22/2:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benhabib S., (1992). Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernstein R., (2005). The Abuse of Evil: The Corruption of Politics and Religion Since 9/11. Blackwell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Birch H., (1993). “If Looks Could Kill: Myra Hindley and the Iconography of Evil”. In: Birch H., (eds) Moving Targets: Women, Murder and Representation. Virago, London, pp. 32–61Google Scholar
  9. Bottomley, A., (2004) “Shock to Thought: An Encounter (of a Third Kind) with Legal Feminism”, Feminist Legal Studies 12/1:29–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler J., (1993). Bodies That Matter: On the Discourses Limits of Sex. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Butler J., (2004). Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Cameron D., Fraser E., (1987). The Lust To Kill. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, B., “Look Beyond that Menacing Stare”, Independent on Sunday (17 November 2002).Google Scholar
  14. Card C., (2002). The Atrocity Paradigm: A Theory of Evil. OUP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Charlesworth H., Chinkin C., (2000). The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Analysis. Manchester UP, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen S., (2001). States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Collier R., (1997). “After Dunblane: Crime, Corporeality, and the (Hetero-)Sexing of the Bodies of Men”. Journal of Law & Society 24:177–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Collier R., (1998). Masculinities, Crime and Criminology. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Connolly W., (2000). “Refashioning the Secular”. In:Butler J., Guillory J., Thomas K., (eds) What’s Left of Theory?. Routledge, New York, pp. 157–191Google Scholar
  20. Douglas M., (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Conceptions of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Fraser D., (2005). Law after Auschwitz: Towards a Jurisprudence of the Holocaust. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
  22. Frum D., Perle R., (2003). An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Gurnham D., (2003). “The Moral Narrative of Criminal Responsibility and the Principled Justification of Tariffs for Murder: Myra Hindley and Thompson and Venables”. Legal Studies 23:605–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Halley J., (2004). “Take a Break from Feminism?”. In: Knop K., (eds) Gender and Human Rights. OUP, Oxford, pp. 57–82Google Scholar
  25. Hawkins, C., “The Monster Body of Myra Hindley”, Scan Journal of Media Arts Culture 1/3 (November 2004). [http://scan.net.au/]Google Scholar
  26. Hudson B., (2003). Justice in the Risk Society: Challenging and Reaffirming Justice in Late Modernity. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Jamieson R., (1999). “Genocide and the Social Production of Immorality”. Theoretical Criminology 3:131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jewkes Y., (2004). Media & Crime. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson P.H., (1967). On Iniquity: Some Personal Reflections Arising Out of the Moors Murders. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Kapur R., (2002). “The Tragedy of Victimization Rhetoric: Resurrecting the ‘Native’ Subject in International/Post-colonial Feminist Legal Rhetoric”. Harvard Human Rights Law Journal 15:1–38Google Scholar
  31. Kennedy D., (2004). The Dark Sides of Virtue: Reassessing International Humanitarianism. Princeton UP, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  32. Kennedy H., (1992). Eve Was Framed: Women and British Justice. Chatto & Windus, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirsta A., (1994). Deadlier Than The Male. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Levi P., (1989). The Drowned and the Saved. Vintage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. McNay L., (2000). Gender and Agency: Reconfiguring the Subject in Feminist and Social Theory. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. McNay L., (2003). “Having it Both Ways: The Incompatibility of Narrative Identity and Communicative Ethics in Feminist Thought”. Theory, Culture & Society 20/6:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Masters, B., “The Other Side of Evil”, Independent on Sunday (17 November 2002).Google Scholar
  38. Mendieta, E., Review of ed. M.P. Lara, Rethinking Evil: Contemporary Perspectives, Hypatia 18/2 (2003), 208–213.Google Scholar
  39. Millbank J., (1996). “From Butch to Butcher’s Knife: Film, Crime and Lesbian Sexuality”. Sydney Law Review 18:451–473Google Scholar
  40. Millbank J., (2004). “It’s About This: Lesbians, Prison, Desire”. Social & Legal Studies 13:155–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morrissey B., (2002). “Crises of Representation, or Why Don’t Feminists Talk About Myra?”. Australian Feminist Law Journal 16:109–131Google Scholar
  42. Morrissey B., (2003). When Women Kill: Questions of Agency and Subjectivity. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Neiman S., (2001). “What’s the Problem of Evil?”. In: Lara M.P., (eds) Rethinking Evil: Contemporary Perspectives. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 27–45Google Scholar
  44. Neiman S., (2002). Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy. Princeton UP, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  45. Orford A., (2003). Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Padfield, N., “Tariffs in Murder Cases”, Criminal Law Review (2002), 192–204.Google Scholar
  47. Razack S.H., (2004). Dark Threats and White Knights: The Somalia Affair, Peacekeeping and the New Imperialism. Toronto UP, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  48. Ritchie J., (1988). Myra Hindley: Inside the Mind of a Murderess. Angus & Robertson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. San Roque M., (1999). “Popular Trials/Criminal Fictions/Celebrity Feminism and the Bernardo/Homolka Case”. Australian Feminist Law Journal 13:38–65Google Scholar
  50. Schone J., (2000). “The Hardest Case of All: Myra Hindley, Life Sentences, and the Rule of Law”. International Journal of the Sociology of Law 28:273–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schott, R.M., ed. Special Issue on “Feminist Philosophy and the Problem of Evil”, Hypatia 18/1 (2003a).Google Scholar
  52. Schott, R.M., ed. “Feminist Philosophy and the Problem of Evil, Part II”, Hypatia 18/2 (2003b), 152–226.Google Scholar
  53. Smart C., (1999). “A History of Ambivalence and Conflict in the Discursive Construction of the ‘Child Victim’ of Sexual Abuse”. Social & Legal Studies 8:391–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stanford, P., “Myra Hindley”, The Guardian (16 November 2002).Google Scholar
  55. Storrs E., (2004). “‘Our Scapegoat’: An Exploration of Media Representations of Myra Hindley and Rosemary West”. Theology & Sexuality 11:9–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Symposium, “Claudia Card’s Atrocity Paradigm”, Hypatia 19 (2004), 184–220.Google Scholar
  57. Trunk I., (1996). Judenrat: The Jewish Councils in Eastern Europe under Nazi Occupation. Nebraska UP, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  58. Winter J., (2002). “The Truth Will Out? The Role of Judicial Advocacy and Gender in Verdict Construction”. Social & Legal Studies 11:343–367Google Scholar
  59. Wykes M., (1998). “A Family Affair: Sex, the Press and the Wests”. In: Carter C., Branston G., Allan S., (eds) News, Gender and Power. Routledge, London, pp. 233–247Google Scholar
  60. Young A., (1996). Imagining Crime: Textual Outlaws and Criminal Conversations. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Young I.M., (2003). “The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the Current Security State”. Signs 29:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zizek, S., “Against the Double Blackmail”, The Nation (21 May 1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamEngland
  2. 2.Law SchoolUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations