Professor Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov


Interim Pro-Vice Chancellor and Executive Dean, Faculty of Arts, Business and Social Sciences
+441483683095
68 AP 03
Jasmine Chandler

About

Research

Research interests

Teaching

Publications

BEBHINN DONNELLY-LAZAROV (2011)The Figuring of Morality in Adjudication: Not so Special?, In: Ratio juris24(3)pp. 284-303 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
BEBHINN Donnelly (2007)Subjectivity and Law's Fields of Enquiry, In: Ratio juris20(1)pp. 77-96 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov (2013)The Normative Claim of Law, In: Jurisprudence (Oxford, England)4(2)pp. 336-343 Taylor & Francis
Bebhinn Donnelly, Patrick Bishop (2007)Natural law and ecocentrism, In: Journal of environmental law19(1)pp. 89-101
Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov (2015)Preface, In: A Philosophy of Criminal Attemptspp. x-xii
Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov (2018)Intention as Non-Observational Knowledge: Rescuing Responsibility from the Brain, In: Neurolaw and Responsibility for Action: Concepts, Crimes, and Courtspp. 104-123
Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov (2017)Intention in Criminal Law: The Challenge from Non‐Observational Knowledge, In: Ratio juris30(4)pp. 451-470

Intention is at the heart of criminal law. If it is not the mens rea requirement found most often in offences, it is still the standard against which other grades of fault tend relatively to be judged. It has generated much controversy, as the crucial question, “Did the defendant intend X?” is resistant to clear answers. This paper argues that intention‐questions are difficult because intention is not the thing law takes it to be: Importantly, contrary to law's assumptions, it is neither a state of mind nor is it connected in an exclusive manner to the reasons for which we act.

Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov (2012)Dworkin's Morality and its Limited Implications for Law, In: The Canadian journal of law and jurisprudence25(1)pp. 79-95
Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov (2025)'I Didn't Know What I Was Doing!' Not Knowing as the Grounding for Exculpation in Automatism, In: Current legal problems78(1)pp. 339-376 Oxford Univ Press

A natural response to those who commit offence in highly disordered mental states is to consider that they did not know what they were doing at the time. This common response is compatible with the theoretical idea that in states of sane or insane automatism, self-awareness is lost, and our agential connection to our capacities breaks down. It is also consistent with a philosophically coherent grounding for exculpation in such cases, one based on the absence of non-observational knowledge, and on the defeat of agency that flows therefrom. The theoretical good sense in our natural response to affected agents (they did not know what they were doing!) reveals problems in the current law of automatism, and illuminates a more apt defence.

Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov (2010)Natural Law and the Possibility of Universal Normative Foundations, In: Hélène Fabri, Rüdiger Wolfrum, Jana Gogolin (eds.), Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Lawpp. 255-266 Bloomsbury Publishing (UK)
Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov (2021)What it Means to be Responsible for Action: Mind and Movement in Criminal Law, In: Journal of law, information and science26(1) Wm. W. Gaunt and Sons Inc
Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov (2021)Evil trolley turners; what they do and how they do it, In: Jurisprudence (Oxford, England)12(2)pp. 259-268 Taylor & Francis
Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov (2021)Neuroscience and the Moral Enhancement of Offenders: The Exceptionally ‘Good’ Brain as a Thought Experiment, In: Neurolawpp. 229-250 Springer International Publishing

Rather than ask a common question—how brain ‘abnormalities’ affect moral assessments of the wrongdoer—this paper considers how our response to the good person might change on learning that their unusual brain enhances their goodness. Is the person with an extremely ‘good’ brain morally better, or worse indeed, than the rest of us? What, if anything, might it mean for us to be enhanced relative to the good person or for the ‘good’ person to be enhanced relative to us? What follows ethically for neuroenhancement and our approach to criminal offending? An insight, given added prominence by the change in focus, is that interventions have the potential not just to change the person, but to change what it is to be persons.

Additional publications