Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 109–133 | Cite as

Psychologising Jekyll, Demonising Hyde: The Strange Case of Criminal Responsibility

  • Nicola LaceyEmail author
Original Paper


This paper puts the famous story of Jekyll and Hyde to work for a specific analytic purpose. The question of responsibility for crime, complicated by the divided subjectivity implicit in Mr. Hyde’s appearance, and illuminated by Robert Louis Stevenson’s grasp of contemporary psychiatric, evolutionary and medical thought as promising new technologies for effecting a distinction between criminality and innocence, is key to the interest of the story. I argue that Jekyll and Hyde serves as a powerful metaphor both for specifically late Victorian perplexities about criminality and criminal responsibility, and for more persistently troubling questions about the legitimacy of and practical basis for criminalization. A close reading of the story illustrates the complex mix of elements bearing on criminal responsibility-attribution, and—incidentally—helps to explain what is wrong with the influential argument that, by the end of the nineteenth Century, attributions of responsibility in English criminal law already rested primarily and unambiguously on factual findings about the defendant’s state of mind. Far from representing the triumph of a practice of responsibility-attribution grounded in the assessment of whether the defendant’s capacities were fully engaged, I argue that the terrain of mental derangement defences in late nineteenth Century England helps us to understand that longer-standing patterns of moral evaluation of character remained central to the criminal process. And precisely because ‘character’ remained key to the institutional effort to distinguish criminality and innocence, the ‘terror’ of Stevenson’s story resides in its questioning of whether either scientific knowledge or moral evaluation of character can provide a stable basis for attributions of responsibility. In conclusion, I will also suggest that Stevenson’s tale can help us to make sense of the resurgence of overtly ‘character-based’ practices of responsibility attribution in contemporary Britain and the United States, which themselves reflect a renewed crisis of confidence in our ability to effect a ‘dissociation’ between criminality and innocence.


Criminal law Responsibility Mental incapacity Character Law and literature 


  1. Brontë, C. (2003). Jane Eyre. 1847: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  2. Collins, P. (1965). Dickens and crime (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Collins, W. (1998). The moonstone. 1868: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, W. (1999). The woman in white. 1860: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  5. Conley, C. A. (1991). The unwritten law: Criminal justice in Victorian Kent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Danta, C. (2010) The metaphysical cut: Darwin and Stevenson on vivisection. Victorian Review: an Interdisciplinary Journal of Victorian Studies, 36(2) (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  7. De Quincey, T. (1966). Confessions of an opium eater. 1821: London: Signet Classics.Google Scholar
  8. Eigen, J. P. (1995). Witnessing insanity: Madness and mad doctors in the English court. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eigen, J. P. (1999). Lesion of the Will: Medical resolve and criminal responsibility in Victorian insanity trials. Law and Society Review, 33, 425–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eigen, J. P. (2003). Unconscious crime: Mental absence and criminal responsibility in Victorian London. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eliot, G. (1995). Daniel Deronda. 1876: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  12. Eliot, G. (1999). The lifted Veil. 1859: The lifted Veil, Brother Jacob Oxford World’s Classics.Google Scholar
  13. Farmer, L. (1997). Criminal law, tradition and legal order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1992). The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and its Implications. Criminology, 39, 449–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fielding, H. (1972). Essay on the knowledge of the characters of men. In H. K. Miller (Ed.), Miscellanies (first published 1743) (Vol. 1). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fielding, H. (1996). The history of Tom Jones, a foundling. 1749: Oxford World’s Classics.Google Scholar
  17. Fingarette, H. (1969, 2000). Self-deception. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fingarette, H., & Hasse, A. F. (1979). Mental disability and criminal responsibility. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Finn, M. C. (2003). The character of credit: Personal debt in English culture, 1740–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fletcher, G. P. (1978). Rethinking criminal law. London: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  21. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gish, N. K. (2007). Jekyll and Hyde: The psychology of dissociation. International Journal of Scottish Literature, 2, 1–10. ISSN 1751-2808; Scholar
  23. Hacking, I. (1995). Rewriting the soul: Multiple personality and the sciences of memory. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Harcourt, B. (2003). From the Ne’er-Do-Well to the Criminal History Category: The Refinement of the Actuarial Model in Criminal Law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66, 99.Google Scholar
  25. Hardy, T. (2004). Tess of the d’Urbervilles. 1891: Bantam Classics.Google Scholar
  26. Harris, R. (1989). Murders and madness: Medicine, Law and society in the fin de Siècle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hawthorne, N. (2007). The scarlet letter. 1850: Oxford World’s Classics.Google Scholar
  28. Hogg, J. (1999). The private memoirs and confessions of a justified sinner. 1824: Oxford World’s Classics.Google Scholar
  29. Horder, J. (1997). Two Histories and Four Hidden Principles of Mens Rea. Law Quarterly Review, 113, 95–119.Google Scholar
  30. Husak, D. (2008). Overcriminalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Judge, E. P. (2004). Character witnesses: Credibility and testimony in the eighteenth century novel. D. Phil. thesis, Dalhousie University.Google Scholar
  32. Lacey, N. (2001a). In Search of the Responsible Subject: History, Philosophy and Criminal Law Theory. Modern Law Review, 64, 350–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lacey, N. (2001b). Responsibility and modernity in criminal law. Journal of Political Philosophy, 9, 249–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lacey, N. (2007). Space, time and function: Intersecting principles of responsibility across the terrain of criminal justice. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 1, 233–250.Google Scholar
  35. Lacey, N. (2007b). Character, capacity, outcome: Towards a framework for assessing the shifting pattern of criminal responsibility in modern English law. In M. Dubber & L. Farmer (Eds.), Modern histories of crime and punishment (pp. 14–41). California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lacey, N. (2008a). Women, crime and character: From Moll Flanders to Tess of the d’Urbervilles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lacey, N. (2008b). The Prisoners’ Dilemma: Political economy and punishment in contemporary societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lacey, N. The resurgence of character?: Responsibility in the context of criminalisation. In A. Duff & S. Green (Eds.), Philosophical foundations of criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  39. Lewis, M. (1994). The Monk (1796), in four gothic novels (p. 159). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Loughnan, A. (2007). Manifest madness: Towards a new understanding of the insanity defence. Modern Law Review, 70, 379–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lynch, D. S. (1998). The economy of character: Novels, market culture and the business of Inner meaning. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mighall, R. (2002). ‘Introduction’ to Robert Louis Stevenson, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (pp. ix–xxxviii). 1886: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  43. Mighall, R. (2002). Diagnosing Jekyll: The scientific context to Dr Jekyll’s experiment and Mr Hyde’s embodiment. In R. L. Stevenson (Eds.), Strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (pp. 145–161). 1886: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  44. Moore, M. S. (1984). Law and psychiatry: Rethinking the relationship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Nadelhofer, T. (2006). ‘Bad acts, blameworthy agents and intentional actions: Some problems for juror impartiality. Philosophical Explorations, 9, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Norrie, A. (2001). Crime, reason and history (2nd ed.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  47. Proceedings of the Old Bailey.
  48. Rabin D. Y. (2004). Identity, crime and legal responsibility in eighteenth-century England (Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
  49. Radcliffe, A. (1998). The mysteries of Udolpho. 1792: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  50. Radzinowicz, L., & Hood, R. (1990). The emergence of penal policy in Victorian and Edwardian England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Redmayne, M. (2002). The relevance of bad character. Cambridge Law Journal, 61, 684–714.Google Scholar
  52. Redmayne, M. (2008). The ethics of character evidence. Current Legal Problems, 61, 371–399.Google Scholar
  53. Rose, N. (1999). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self (1989) (2nd ed.). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  54. Saks, E. R., & Behnke, S. H. (1997). Jekyll on trial: Multiple personality disorder and criminal law. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Schramm, J.-M. (2000). Testimony and advocacy in Victorian law, literature and theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Shapin, S. (1983). A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Shelley, M. (1994). Frankenstein, or, the modern Prometheus. 1818: in Four Gothic Novels Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Smith, R. (1981). Trial by medicine: Insanity and responsibility in Victorian trials. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Smith, R. (1992). Inhibition: History and meaning in the sciences of mind and brain. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  61. Stevenson, R. L. (2002). Strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. 1886: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  62. Stoker, B. (1998). Dracula. 1897: Oxford World’s Classics.Google Scholar
  63. Tadros, V. (2007). Justice, Terrorism. New Criminal Law Review, 10, 658–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thackeray, W. M. (2001). Vanity fair. 1848: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  65. Walker, N. (1968). Crime and insanity in England, Vol. 1: The historical perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Walpole, H. (1994). The Castle of Otranto (1764) in Four Gothic Novels. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Warhman, D. (2004). The making of the modern self. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Wiener, M. (1991). Reconstructing the criminal: Culture, law and policy in England, 1830–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Wilde, O. (2006). The picture of Dorian Gray. 1890: Oxford World’s Classics.Google Scholar
  70. Wilner, A. F. (1988). Henry Fielding and the Knowledge of Character. Modern Language Studies, 18(1), 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Young, J. (1999). The exclusive society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  72. Zedner, L. (1991). Women, crime and custody in Victorian England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Zedner, L. (2008). Fixing the future: the pre-emptive turn in criminal justice. In B. McSherry et al. (Ed.), Regulating deviance: The redirection of criminalisation and the futures of criminal law. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law DepartmentLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations